State ex rel. J.H.

Decision Date09 August 2022
Docket Number2022-CA-0324
PartiesSTATE OF LOUISIANA IN THE INTEREST OF J.H.
CourtCourt of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US

STATE OF LOUISIANA IN THE INTEREST OF J.H.

No. 2022-CA-0324

Court of Appeals of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit

August 9, 2022


APPEAL FROM JUVENILE COURT ORLEANS PARISH NO. 2022-014-06-DQ-C, SECTION "C" Honorable Candice Bates Anderson, Judge

Jason R. Williams DISTRICT ATTORNEY Brad Scott Assistant District Attorney, Appeals Division ORLEANS PARISH DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE COUNSEL FOR STATE OF LOUISIANA/APPELLEE

Katherine M. Franks LOUISIANA APPELLATE PROJECT COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT

Court composed of Chief Judge Terri F. Love, Judge Sandra Cabrina Jenkins, Judge Tiffany Gautier Chase

SANDRA CABRINA JENKINS JUDGE

1

The juvenile, J.H., appeals the delinquency adjudication for one misdemeanor count of illegal possession of a handgun by a juvenile, in violation of La. R.S. 14:98.5, and the disposition of six months in custody imposed by the trial court. J.H.'s appeal was lodged in this Court on May 13, 2022. Prior to the submission of this appeal to the Court, on August 4, 2022, J.H.'s six-month disposition was completed. In light of Louisiana jurisprudence, holding that the satisfaction of a sentence renders a criminal appeal moot due to the lack of practical relief or effect of appellate review, this Court ordered the parties to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed as moot. See State v. Malone, 08-2253 (La. 12/1/09), 25 So.3d 113. In consideration of the parties' responses and further review of applicable jurisprudence, this Court maintains the appeal and, after review of the merits, we reverse the trial court's adjudication of J.H. as delinquent for violation of illegal possession of a handgun.

2

FACTS

At the adjudication hearing, Detective Amit Bidichandani of the New Orleans Police Department ("NOPD") testified that he participated in the arrest of J.H. On January 4, 2022, Det. Bidichandani responded to a 911 call, received at approximately 4:30 p.m., reporting an aggravated assault with a firearm at the corner of Reverend John Raphael Jr. Way and Erato Street, which is in the area of the Melpomene Housing Development. Det. Bidichandani responded to the address of the 911 caller and spoke with three complaining witnesses.[1] In speaking with the witnesses, Det. Bidichandani learned that one witness recognized the person who brandished the gun, identified that person by first name as well as by the nickname "J4", informed Det. Bidichandani of the person's approximate address, and showed Det. Bidichandani pictures of the person from an Instagram page.

Based on the witness account, Det. Bidichandani obtained video surveillance footage from the director of the Melpomene Housing Development, Mr. Pollard. Det. Bidichandani stated that, from his previous experience working in that area, he knew that the Melpomene Housing Development had surveillance cameras recording video in the area where the incident occurred. Det. Bidichandani obtained from Mr. Pollard a video recording from the date, location, and approximate time of the reported incident. In the video, Det. Bidichandani viewed

3

a person, who fit the description from the witnesses, pulling a firearm from his waistband.

After reviewing the video, Det. Bidichandani obtained an arrest warrant for J.H., who was subsequently located at his aunt's residence. Det. Bidichandani then obtained a search warrant for the aunt's residence and participated in the search. He stated that three firearms were seized, including an "AR-style pistol" that was "consistent in appearance with the firearm" observed on the surveillance video. In addition to the firearms, the officers seized gun magazines and several pair of camouflage pants, consistent with what the person in the video was wearing.

Det. Bidichandani then identified J.H. in court as the person he arrested in connection with his investigation, based upon the witness account and the surveillance video. Det. Bidichandani testified that he had not had any interaction or knowledge of J.H. prior to this case.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On January 12, 2022, J.H. was arrested and charged with three felony counts of aggravated assault with a firearm and one misdemeanor count of illegal possession of a handgun by a juvenile.[2] Upon arrest, J.H. was held in custody at the Juvenile Justice Intervention Center ("JJIC"). On January 14, 2022, the trial court found probable cause for J.H.'s arrest and continued custody and set bail at $50,000.

4

On March 15, 2022, the date set for adjudication, the State nolle prosequed the three felony counts of aggravated assault with a firearm, due to the State's inability to contact and secure the presence of the witnesses/victims. The trial court then proceeded with the adjudication hearing on the misdemeanor count of illegal possession of a handgun by a juvenile. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court adjudicated J.H. delinquent and ordered the Office of Juvenile Justice ("OJJ") to conduct a pre-disposition investigation.

At the disposition hearing on April 11, 2022, the trial court heard testimony from the OJJ representative who prepared the pre-disposition report and recommended a disposition that included custodial detention. The trial court noted J.H.'s five prior delinquency adjudications, since 2019, and unsuccessful adjustment while previously under probation supervision. The trial court imposed a disposition of six months in the custody of OJJ, with credit for the time served in custody since J.H.'s arrest on January 12, 2022.

On April 20, 2022, J.H. timely filed notice of appeal of the adjudication and disposition. After the record was lodged in this Court on May 13, 2022, a briefing schedule was issued. J.H. moved for and was granted a one-week extension of time to file the appellate brief. All briefs were timely filed by June 21, 2022. This expedited appeal was submitted on August 4, 2022.[3]

5

JURISDICTIONAL ISSUE

On July 26, 2022, this Court issued an order for the parties to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed as moot, in consideration that J.H.'s term of disposition ended on July 12, 2022, and in light of State v. Malone, supra.

In Malone, the Louisiana Supreme Court discussed the general rule of mootness of a criminal appeal, stating as follows:

A case is "moot" when a rendered judgment or decree can serve no useful purpose and give no practical relief or effect. If the case is moot, there is no subject matter on which the judgment of the court can operate.
There are three general rules which have developed when courts have considered whether a criminal case is moot so as to preclude review due to satisfaction of the sentence: (A) the traditional rule, (B) the liberal rule, and (C) the federal rule. The traditional rule provides that the satisfaction of the sentence renders the case moot so as to preclude review; the liberal rule provides that an accused's interest in clearing his name permits review even after the sentence has been satisfied; and the federal rule provides that satisfaction of a sentence renders the case moot unless, as a result of the conviction, the defendant suffers collateral consequences. The traditional rule is generally premised on a court's lack of jurisdiction to hear moot cases, the courts' reluctance to issue advisory opinions, the need to end litigation, and the
...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT