Opinion
24-KH-558
12-02-2024
ERIC RICHARDSON v. 24TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF JEFFERSON STATE OF LOUISIANA IN RE ERIC RICHARDSON
APPLYING FOR SUPERVISORY WRIT FROM THE TWENTY-FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF LOUISIANA, DIRECTED TO THE HONORABLE JUNE B. DARENSBURG, DIVISION "C", NUMBER 16-6969
Panel composed of Judges Susan M. Chehardy, Stephen J. Windhorst, and Timothy S. Marcel
WRIT DENIED
In this pro se writ application filed on November 20, 2024, realtor, Eric Richardson, seeks mandamus relief ordering the trial court to conduct a preliminary examination in case number 16-6969 in the 24th Judicial District Court. In support of his claim, relator includes a copy of the trial court's order stating that the preliminary examination was set for hearing on December 15, 2016. Also enclosed is the December 15, 2016 minute entry continuing the hearing without date.
A review of the court record shows that the trial court continued the December 15, 2016 preliminary examination without date because the relator was not present in court. The record also indicates that fourteen months later, relator was found guilty of five counts of a variety of drug offenses following a bench trial on April 18, 2018 and was sentenced on May 22, 2018. When a defendant does not object to the trial court's failure to rule on a motion before trial, the motion is considered waived. State v. Rivera, 13-673 (La.App. 5 Cir. 1/31/14), 134 So.3d 61, 66. Furthermore, at that early stage of a case, a finding that the State lacks probable cause entitles a defendant only to be released from custody or bail and does not prevent the State from proceeding against him. See La. C.Cr.P. art. 296. Thus, absent a demonstration of prejudice, any issue concerning probable cause is moot after conviction. State v. Williams, 10-1067 (La.App. 5 Cir. 10/25/11), 77 So.3d 394.
In the instant case, relator's convictions and sentences were affirmed by this Court on September 4, 2019. State v. Richardson, 18-717 (La.App. 5 Cir. 9/4/19), 279 So.3d 501, writ denied, 19-1722 (La. 7/2/20), 297 So.3d 764. Relator's writ of mandamus requesting a preliminary examination approximately four years after his convictions and sentences became final is moot.
To the extent that relator argues that the trial court's failure to hold the preliminary examination constitutes a due process violation, such a claim, raised in a post-conviction context, is time-barred. See La. C.Cr.P. art. 930.8(A), which provides in pertinent part: "No application for post-conviction relief including applications which seek an out-of-time appeal, shall be considered if it is filed more than two years after the judgment of conviction and sentence has become final."
Accordingly, relator is not entitled to mandamus relief. The writ application is denied.
TSM
SMC
SJW