Opinion
NO. 19-K-353
08-09-2019
RAYMOND H. KIMBLE, III v. STATE OF LOUISIANA
Susan Buchholz First Deputy Clerk IN RE RAYMOND H. KIMBLE, III APPLYING FOR SUPERVISORY WRIT FROM THE TWENTY-FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF LOUISIANA, DIRECTED TO THE HONORABLE RAYMOND S. STEIB, JR., DIVISION "A", NUMBER 16-3781, 16-3960, 16-5822 Panel composed of Judges Marc E. Johnson, Hans J. Liljeberg, and John J. Molaison, Jr.
WRIT GRANTED FOR LIMITED PURPOSE
Relator, Raymond H. Kimble, III, seeks review of the trial court's July 11, 2019 denial of his "Motion for Speedy Trial." In its ruling, the trial court denied the motion on the basis that Relator is not pro se, and Relator's trial counsel did not adopt Relator's motion.
La. C.Cr.P. art. 701 states, in pertinent part:
D. (1) A motion by the defendant for a speedy trial, in order to be valid, must be accompanied by an affidavit by defendant's counsel certifying that the defendant and his counsel are prepared to proceed to trial within the delays set forth in this Article. Except as provided in Subparagraph (3) of this Paragraph, after the filing of a motion for a speedy trial by the defendant and his counsel, the time period for commencement of trial shall be as follows:
(a) The trial of a defendant charged with a felony shall commence within one hundred twenty days if he is continued in custody and within one hundred eighty days if he is not continued in custody.
***
F. A motion for a speedy trial filed by the defendant, but not verified by the affidavit of his counsel, shall be set for contradictory hearing within thirty days.
La. C.Cr.P. art. 701(D)(3) states:
After a motion for a speedy trial has been filed by the defendant, if the defendant files any subsequent motion which requires a contradictory hearing, the court may suspend, in accordance with Article 580, or dismiss upon a finding of bad faith the pending speedy trial motion. In addition, the period of time within which the trial is required to commence, as set forth by Article 578, may be suspended, in accordance with Article 580, from the time that the subsequent motion is filed by the defendant until the court rules upon such motion.
Here, Relator's motion for speedy trial was not verified by his counsel of record. Thus, in light of La. C.Cr.P. art. 701(F), the procedural vehicle to determine if Relator's right to a speedy trial was violated is by way of a contradictory hearing. Therefore, we find the trial court erred in summarily denying Relator's motion without first scheduling a contradictory hearing.
Accordingly, we grant the writ application for the limited purpose of remanding the matter to the trial court for a contradictory hearing and the issuance of a ruling on Relator's request for a speedy trial in district court case numbers 16-3781, 16-3960, and 16-5822.
Gretna, Louisiana, this 9th day of August, 2019.
MEJ
HJL
JJM