Summary
The Louisiana court declined to consider a writ application seeking review of the denial of a motion to suppress after the defendant pleaded guilty but before sentencing. The court held that the case was not in the proper procedural posture for supervisory review because sentence had not yet been imposed, and noted that premature review would encourage piecemeal litigation.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the court could exercise appellate or supervisory jurisdiction to review the denial of a motion to suppress and the resulting conviction before the defendant had been sentenced.
- Whether the defendant's writ application should be considered when doing so could require a later remand for sentencing and create piecemeal criminal litigation.
Holdings
- A criminal case is not in a proper procedural posture for appellate or analogous supervisory review until the trial court has imposed sentence.
Key quotations
“WRIT NOT CONSIDERED: It appears from the record that the defendant has not been sentenced. Until such time as a sentence is imposed by the trial court, this case is not in a proper procedural posture for the exercise of our supervisory jurisdiction.” (526 So. 2d at 1312)
Factual background
White pleaded guilty to driving while intoxicated under La. R.S. 41:98. Before entering the plea, he preserved his right under State v. Crosby to seek review of the denial of his motion to suppress. Because sentencing had not yet occurred, the appellate court declined to review the conviction or the pretrial suppression ruling.
Procedural history
White pleaded guilty to driving while intoxicated and preserved review of the trial court's suppression ruling under State v. Crosby. The trial court deferred sentencing pending the appellate court's decision. The Louisiana Court of Appeal, exercising supervisory-jurisdiction analysis, refused to consider the writ until sentence had been imposed.