State v. Henderson

• Decision Date: 07 July 1986
• Docket Number: No. 86-KK-0952,86-KK-0952
• Citation: 491 So.2d 647
• Parties: STATE of Louisiana v. Charles HENDERSON, Jr.
• Court: Louisiana Supreme Court

Page 647

491 So.2d 647

STATE of Louisiana v. Charles HENDERSON, Jr.

No. 86-KK-0952.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

July 7, 1986.

William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., Harry F. Connick, Dist. Atty., Joseph DiRosa, Jr., Asst. Dist. Atty., for plaintiff-applicant.

Brian Begue, New Orleans, for defendant-respondent.

E. Pete Adams, District Attorney Assoc., amicus.

CALOGERO, Justice.

We granted writs on the state's application to review the decision of the Court of Appeal, 485 So.2d 656 (1986) in this case that a defendant charged with a first violation of La.Rev.Stat.Ann. § 14:98, driving while intoxicated, is entitled to a jury trial. Contrary to the decision of the Court of Appeal, we conclude that "special costs" mandated in La.Code Crim.Pro.Ann. art. 887(C) and (D) and the "reinstatement fee" required by La.Rev.Stat.Ann. § 32:414(G) are not disguised penalties which subject a defendant to "fines" which trigger the right to jury trial under La.Code Crim.Pro. art. 779.

The defendant, Charles Henderson, Jr., was arrested on June 11, 1984, and charged with driving while intoxicated (DWI) first offense in the Traffic Court for the City of New Orleans. Among other pre-trial motions was the defendant's motion to quash the affidavit on grounds that La.Rev.Stat.Ann. § 14:98, first offense, requires a jury trial, foreclosing action by the Traffic Court, which lacks jurisdiction over jury trials by virtue of La.Rev.Stat.Ann. § 13:2501.1(F). The Traffic Court denied the motion, and the Criminal District Court for the Parish of Orleans upheld that ruling. On writ of certiorari, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal reversed both lower courts and held that a DWI first offender is entitled to a jury trial. Although the court of appeal opinion discussed the seriousness of the offense and repeated an assertion by a federal circuit court that only five states deny defendants the right to jury trial on DWI charges, ¹ their holding was specifically based on their conclusion that the charged offense is punishable by fines of over $500 which mandates a trial by jury under La.Code Crim.Pro. art. 779(A).

La.Code Crim.Pro. art. 779(A) provides:

A. A defendant charged with a misdemeanor in which the punishment may be a fine in excess of five hundred dollars or imprisonment for more than six months shall be tried by a jury of six jurors, all of whom must concur to render a verdict. ²

On its face, the penalty provision of the offense of operating a vehicle while intoxicated would not require a jury trial. La.Rev.Stat.Ann. § 14:98(B) states in pertinent part:

B. On a first conviction, the offender shall be fined not less than one hundred twenty-five dollars nor more than five hundred dollars and imprisoned for not less than ten days nor more than six months.

In fact, the penalty in § 14:98(B) was reduced in the same year that art. 779 was amended to provide its present requirements, indicating that § 14:98 was designed to provide the maximum penalty allowable without triggering the provisions of art. 779. See State v. Seals, 255 La. 1005, 233 So.2d 914 (1970).

However, the Legislature later added to La.Code Crim.Pro. art. 887, an article dealing with defendant's liability for costs, "special costs" which must be assessed against a defendant convicted of a violation of § 14:98 and to La.Rev.Stat.Ann. § 32:414, a statute dealing with license revocation, a "reinstatement fee" of fifty dollars. Under art. 887(C), a convicted offender who has been subjected to a blood, breath, or urine analysis must be assessed $50 to be paid to the governing authority whose law enforcement agency performed the analysis. And, art. 887(D) requires payment of another $50 to defray expenses of probation or incarceration. This cost is paid alternatively to the agency administering the prescribed substance abuse program, driver improvement program, or community service activities or to the custodian of the facility in which the offender is incarcerated.

The defendant contends that these "special costs" are more properly additional fines, which should be added to the penalties prescribed under § 14:98(B) to ascertain maximum penalty exposure. Under this reasoning, the cumulative penalty of at least $600 qualifies the DWI first offender for a jury trial under art. 779(A).

At least for purposes of determining its own appellate jurisdiction in criminal cases, however, this Court has consistently held that "costs" are not computed as part of the "fine" imposed on the defendant. State v. Roy, 152 La. 933, 94 So. 703 (1922); State v. Joseph, 137 La. 52, 68 So. 211 (1915); State v. Price, 124 La. 917, 50 So. 794 (1909); State v. Brannon, 34 La.Ann. 942 (1882). According to the Court in State v. Joseph, 68 So. at 212:

This court has held ... that the costs of court do not form part of the fine imposed, so as to give appellate jurisdiction to this court. But the payment of costs of court by a convicted person forms part of the sentence, even if it does not form part of the fine imposed, and the state has a clear right to impose the payment of costs in addition to a fine for the violation of one of its statutes.

The Legislature was presumably aware of this Court's long-standing distinction between fines and costs for the purpose of determining the seriousness of a sentence in a criminal case, when it adopted art. 779, tying the right of a jury trial in misdemeanors to "punishment [by a] fine in excess of five hundred dollars," and when it amended art. 887 to assess "special costs" for offenders convicted of violating § 14:98. And, there is no indication that the Legislature intended to change the classification of a DWI, first offense, from a petty to a serious crime or to disguise fines by calling them costs. Although the special costs differ from regular court costs in some respects--they are not discretionary, and they are payable to agencies other than the court--they are more closely related to court costs than to fines. The amounts involved are relatively small and are paid directly to the state agencies which incur special expenses in a successful prosecution, as opposed to the special account maintained by District Attorneys for "[a]ll fines and forfeitures imposed by district courts," in accordance with the provisions of La.Rev.Stat.Ann. § 15:571.11.

With regard to the $50 "reinstatement fee" provided for in La.Rev.Stat.Ann. § 32:414(G), which follows the suspension of one's driver's license as the result of a conviction or of pleas of guilty or nolo contendere on a DWI offense, we note that this provision is a part of the licensing statute. The revocation is an action of the Department of Public Safety which occurs upon "satisfactory evidence" of the conviction or plea. After the period of suspension, the Department then collects the reinstatement fee. As such, it does not even form part of the sentence in a DWI case, and, like the "special costs" assessed under La.Code Crim. Pro. art. 887, it is not paid into the fund designated for "all fines and forfeitures" in the district court. And, license revocation has been characterized as regulatory rather than punitive even by courts which are inclined to view a DWI conviction as a serious offense. United States v. Craner, 652 F.2d 23, 26 (9th Cir.1981).

Furthermore, although the monetary assessments imposed on the DWI offender have risen, we note that the term of incarceration has not been increased. And, it is the six month period of imprisonment, not the $500 fine (an amount whose seriousness appears to have diminished with time) that was constitutionally recognized in Article I § 17 ³ as the "bright-line" in Louisiana between petty and serious criminal offenses. This constitutional provision is in accord with the rule established by the United States Supreme Court, just four years before its enactment, that "no offense can be deemed 'petty' for purposes of the right to trial by jury when imprisonment for more than six months is authorized." Baldwin v. New York, 399 U.S. 66, 69, 90 S.Ct. 1886, 1888, 26 L.Ed.2d 437 (1970). The Baldwin court made no mention of a fine, and, in 1975, Justice White distinguished the punishments of incarceration and imposition of a fine in these words:

It is one thing to hold that deprivation of an individual's liberty beyond a six-month term should not be imposed without the protections of a jury trial, but it is quite another to suggest that, regardless of the circumstances, a jury is required where any fine greater than $500 is contemplated. From the standpoint of determining the seriousness of the risk and the extent of the possible deprivation faced by [the defendant], imprisonment and fines are intrinsically different. Muniz v. Hoffman, 422 U.S. 454, 477, 95 S.Ct. 2178, 2191, 45 L.Ed.2d 319 (1975).

Subsequent to the United States Supreme Court's recognition that the $500 threshold was not the critical distinction between petty and serious offenses, Congress amended 18 U.S.C. § 1(3), which had classified a petty offense as a misdemeanor with a penalty which did not exceed six months imprisonment or a $500 fine, to raise the fine to $5000 for an individual or to $10,000 for a person other than an individual.

The dissenting opinion in this case very cleverly urges an alternate resolution. It is one not without arguable merit, as attested by the fact that it parallels the decision in the court of appeal. It nonetheless admits a central truth which is at the core of this opinion, that the Legislature "did not intend to grant trial by jury" in first offender DWI cases. That they designated the questioned sums as costs rather than fines was not a corruption of language, but a utilization of language to which this Court in prior opinions has attached legal significance, as related more fully hereinabove.

For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the "special costs" assessed convicted DWI first offenders under La.Code Crim.Pro.Ann. art....