State v. Catalon

Summary

This document contains reasons by Chief Justice Johnson in State v. Catalon concerning a motion to quash based on statutory and constitutional speedy-trial violations. The opinion addresses whether an oral continuance, purportedly agreed to by appointed defense counsel who was not present and had not established an attorney-client relationship with the defendant, suspended the applicable limitations period. Chief Justice Johnson would grant the defendant’s writ application, concluding that the State failed to establish a valid suspension or exercise due diligence in bringing the incarcerated defendant to trial.

Holdings

1. The dissent concluded that Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure article 580 did not suspend the article 578 period because the continuance was not requested in a written motion as required by article 707.
2. The dissent would hold that the State failed to establish the due diligence necessary to excuse the delay, particularly because it knew defendant was incarcerated in Texas yet did not bring him to court for approximately three years.
3. The dissent would conclude that counsel's purported agreement could not justify the continuance because counsel had not established a meaningful attorney-client relationship with defendant, was unaware for months that he represented defendant, and was absent from the hearing.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the statutory speedy-trial period under Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure article 578 was suspended by an oral continuance request when no written motion for continuance was filed.
2. Whether appointed defense counsel had authority to agree to a continuance when counsel had not established an attorney-client relationship with defendant and neither counsel nor defendant was present at the hearing.
3. Whether the State failed to exercise due diligence in bringing an incarcerated defendant to court, requiring that the motion to quash be granted.

Disposition

writ_denied