State v. Mendoza

• Decision Date: 13 March 2013
• Docket Number: No. 12–KA–589.,12–KA–589.
• Citation: 113 So.3d 288
• Parties: STATE of Louisiana v. Jose Cesar MENDOZA.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US

113 So.3d 288

STATE of Louisiana

v.Jose Cesar MENDOZA.

No. 12–KA–589.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fifth Circuit.

March 13, 2013.

Paul D. Connick, Jr., District Attorney, Terry M. Boudreaux, Gail D. Schlosser, Brandon Kinnet, Assistant District Attorneys, Gretna, LA, for Plaintiff/Appellant.

Joseph A. Marino, Jr., Attorney at Law, Gretna, LA, for Defendant/Appellee.

Panel composed of Judges SUSAN M. CHEHARDY, FREDERICKA HOMBERG WICKER, and ROBERT M. MURPHY.

ROBERT M. MURPHY, Judge.

[5 Cir. 2]The State of Louisiana appeals the granting of a motion to quash in favor of defendant, Jose Cesar Mendoza, for two prior DWI convictions in the 24th Judicial District Court, Division “C.”

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On May 4, 2011, the Jefferson Parish District Attorney filed a bill of information charging defendant, Jose Cesar Mendoza, with driving while intoxicated (DWI), fifth offense, in violation of La. R.S. 14:98. The bill of information alleged that on November 23, 2010, defendant willfully and unlawfully operated a motor vehicle while intoxicated after having been previously convicted of violating La. R.S. 14:98 on four previous occasions.

Thereafter, on October 4, 2011, defendant filed a “Motion to Quash” the bill of information, asserting that two of his predicate convictions, the 1997 and 1999 convictions, were obtained in violation of his constitutional rights. ¹ On January [5 Cir. 3]12, 2012, defendant filed a memorandum in support of his motion, arguing that the 1997 and 1999 convictions used to charge him as a DWI fifth offender had been previously quashed by Judge Robert A. Pitre, Jr. on July 31, 2001, under case number 01–1468, rendering the doctrine of res judicata applicable to the instant matter.

On February 13, 2012, a hearing was held on the motion to quash and the trial court granted the motion. After the hearing, the State orally moved for an appeal, which was granted on March 29, 2012. The State's appeal follows.

DISCUSSION

The State argues that the trial court erred in granting defendant's Motion to Quash, declaring invalid two of the predicate DWI convictions alleged in the bill of information. First, the State submits that the trial court improperly applied the principle of res judicata to this case when it relied on Judge Pitre's 2001 ruling. The State contends that the trial court erred because the principle of res judicata does not apply to sentence enhancement proceedings. The State further maintains that defendant did not meet his burden of proving an infringement of his rights or a procedural irregularity in the taking of his pleas. Finally, the State asserts that the evidence submitted by the State proves that the predicate pleas were constitutionally obtained.

The defense responds that the trial court properly applied the doctrine of res judicata; alternatively, that when the trial court referenced Judge Pitre's 2001 rulings, she had independently reviewed the evidence introduced at the earlier hearing and based on that review granted the motion to quash. In his 2011 Motion to Quash, defendant challenged the two predicate DWI guilty pleas on two bases: first that they were obtained without a lawful, knowing, and intelligent waiver of his rights; and second that in 2001 Judge Pitre granted a motion to quash. In his [5 Cir. 4]memorandum in support of his motion, defendant argued that these two predicate convictions should be quashed because in 2001, Judge Pitre had previously granted a motion to quash the same two predicate pleas in case number 01–1468, Division “G,” of the 24th Judicial District Court, Parish of Jefferson. Accordingly, defendant argued that the principle of res judicata applied.

The first plea was obtained on November 5, 1997, in the 22nd Judicial District Court, Parish of St. Tammany, case number 278468, Division “C.” The second plea was obtained on May 10, 1999, in First Parish Court, Parish of Jefferson, case number F1229145, Division “B.”

Motion to Quash Hearing

At the hearing on defendant's Motion to Quash, the State introduced five exhibits into evidence.² With respect to the 1997 conviction, the exhibits included: the minute entry, bill of information, and transcript from case number 278468. With respect to the 1999 conviction, the exhibits included: the bill of information, minute entry, waiver of rights form, commitment, fingerprints, and transcript from case number F1229145.

The State also introduced Judge Pitre's 2001 judgment granting defendant's motion to quash the bill of information based upon the same 1997 and 1999 convictions and defendant's 2001 memorandum in support of that motion to quash.

Res Judicata

The State submits that the trial court erred in relying on Judge Pitre's ruling because the principle of res judicata does not apply to sentence enhancement proceedings. The State in effect argues that the trial court must rely on all the evidence available at the time of the requested enhancement to test the prior pleas.

We agree that the trial judge was not bound by Judge Pitre's judgment in case number 01–1468 when considering defendant's Motion to Quash.

[5 Cir. 5]In State v. Duplechin, 05–726 (La.App. 5 Cir. 1/31/06), 922 So.2d 655,writ denied,2006–0475 (La.9/22/06), 937 So.2d 378, this court held that the doctrine of res judicata does not apply to estop the state from using a previously invalidated predicate DWI conviction in a subsequent DWI case. In Duplechin, the defendant was charged with third offense DWI after a judge had previously declared one of the predicate offenses constitutionally invalid. The trial judge applied res judicata to exclude the previously quashed predicate offense from use in the current enhancement effort. This Court then reversed, holding that prior DWI convictions do not form any part of the act for which the defendant is being prosecuted. Rather, “the accused is being prosecuted, and may be tried, convicted, and punished, not for the previous offenses, but for the last offense, although the punishment for this last offense is enhanced because of previous convictions.” Id. at 658. The Duplechin holding applies to the instant facts; res judicata does not apply to exclude previously quashed predicate offenses.

We find, however, that in her ruling that the trial judge did not solely rely upon the principle of res judicata. Rather, she also considered the State's exhibits in rendering an independent ruling based upon the evidence presented on the motion before her.

The pertinent inquiry shifts to whether the trial court erred in declaring two of defendant's predicate DWI convictions constitutionally invalid.

Constitutionality of Defendant's Predicate Pleas

A motion to quash is the proper vehicle to attack the constitutionality of prior convictions used to enhance a DWI charge. State v. Moten, 99–552, p. 2 (La.App. 5 Cir. 11/30/99), 748 So.2d 1210, 1211. The granting of a defendant's motion to quash the bill of information is a discretionary ruling by the trial court and, absent abuse, the ruling should not be disturbed by the appellate court. [5 Cir. 6]State v.Payton, 06–1202, pp. 3–4 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2/28/07), 954 So.2d 193, 195 (citing State v. Love, 00–3347, p. 14 (La.5/23/03), 847 So.2d 1198, 1208).

A presumption of regularity attaches to prior convictions in multiple offender DWI cases and the burden is on the defendant to show the prior guilty plea is constitutionally deficient. State v. Collins, 04–255, p. 5 (La.App. 5 Cir. 10/12/04), 886 So.2d 1149, 1153,writ denied,04–2798 (La.3/11/05), 896 So.2d 62. In State v. Balsano, 09–0735, p. 8 (La.6/19/09), 11 So.3d 475, 479 (per curiam), the Louisiana Supreme Court recognized that it has consistently allowed defendants to attack collaterally the validity of guilty pleas used to enhance their sentences, whether in habitual offender proceedings, State v. Shelton, 621 So.2d 769 (La.1993), or in habitual offender DWI prosecutions. R.S. 15:529.1; State v. Carlos, 98–1366 (La.7/7/99), 738 So.2d 556. This line of jurisprudence sets forth the respective burdens of proof when a defendant challenges the use of a predicate conviction for enhancement under the recidivist habitual offender and driving while intoxicated statutes.

The Louisiana Supreme Court's decision in Carlos applied Shelton's burden shifting rule to the recidivist provisions of the DWI statute. Carlos established a three-step process for determining the validity of prior DWI guilty pleas for use in enhanced DWI proceedings. The State has the initial burden of proving the existence of the prior guilty pleas and that the defendant was represented by counsel when the pleas were taken. Id. (citing Carlos, 98–1366 at 6, 738 So.2d 559). If the State meets this initial burden, “the defendant must produce affirmative evidence showing an infringement of his rights or a procedural irregularity in the taking of the plea.” Id. (quoting Carlos, 98–1366 at 6–7, 738 So.2d at 559). If the defendant makes the required showing, the burden reverts to the State to produce a “perfect” Boykin transcript, i.e., one “which reflects a voluntary, informed, and articulated waiver of the three specific rights mentioned [5 Cir. 7]in Boykin.” Id. (quoting Carlos, 98–1366 at 7, 738 So.2d at 559 n. 4 and Shelton, 621 So.2d at 775 n. 12). Anything less than a perfect transcript, “such as a guilty plea form or minute entry, will require the trial judge to weigh evidence submitted by both sides and determine whether the defendant's Boykin rights were prejudiced.” Id. (quoting Carlos, 98–1366 at 7, 738 So.2d at 559).

In Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969), the United States Supreme Court emphasized three federal constitutional rights that are waived by a guilty plea; the privilege against self-incrimination, the right to a trial by jury, and the right to confront accusers. Because a plea of guilty waives these fundamental rights of an accused, due process requires that the plea be a voluntary and...