State v. Oliveaux

• Decision Date: 24 April 1975
• Docket Number: No. 55321,55321
• Citation: 312 So.2d 337
• Parties: STATE of Louisiana v. Richard OLIVEAUX.
• Court: Louisiana Supreme Court

Page 337

312 So.2d 337

STATE of Louisiana v. Richard OLIVEAUX.

No. 55321.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 24, 1975.

Rehearing Denied May 30, 1975.

John R. Joyce, Wright & Joyce, Monroe, for defendant-appellant.

William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara B. Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., Johnny Carl Parkerson, Dist. Atty., John R. Harrison, Asst. Dist. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.

CALOGERO, Justice.

Defendant, Richard Oliveaux, was convicted after a jury trial of driving while intoxicated, third offense, in violation of La.R.S. 14:98 ¹ and was sentenced to one year at hard labor.

No perfected bills of exceptions or errors duly assigned under La.C.Cr.P. Art. 920 as amended by Acts 1974, No. 207 are presented in this appeal. We are therefore confined to an examination of the pleadings and proceedings for discoverable error. La.C.Cr.P. Art. 920(2).

In brief defendant contends that our review of the record will reveal that the pleadings and proceedings fail to show that he was represented by counsel or that he waived counsel on the occasion of his first conviction for driving while intoxicated. ² He contends that the document which evidences this lack of counsel and lack of waiver is part of the record reviewable by this Court.

The State contends in brief that the record does not disclose reversible error. Neither the State nor the defense cites any authority for its position concerning whether the document which purportedly shows lack of counsel and lack of affirmative waiver is part of the record reviewable under La.C.Cr.P. Art. 920(2).

We have determined that the record in a criminal case includes the caption, the statement of time and place of holding court, the indictment or information and the endorsement thereon, the arraignment, the plea of the accused, the mentioning of the impanelling of the jury, the verdict, and the judgment, State v. Palmer, 251 La. 759, 206 So.2d 485 (1968), State v. Sanford, 248 La. 630, 181 So.2d 50 (1965); the bill of particulars filed in connection with a short form indictment or information, State v. Picou, 236 La. 421, 107 So.2d 691 (1959); and, in capital cases, a minute entry indicating that the jury had been sequestered as required by La.C.Cr.P. Art. 791, State v. Hunter, 306 So.2d 710 (La.1975), State v. Luquette, 275 So.2d 396 (La.1973).

Mere presence of a document in the record transmitted to this Court is not sufficient to allow us to review the document for discoverable error under Article 920(2). State v. Craddock, 307 So.2d 342 (La.1975).

In the instant case, the document which has been included in the record, and which defendant contends we may examine to determine that he was not represented by counsel and did not waive counsel on the occasion of his first conviction for driving while intoxicated, appears to be an extract of the minutes of the City Court of the City of Monroe, ³ and it was admitted into evidence as State Exhibit No. 2. As such, the document comes under the category of evidence, an inspection of which is explicitly proscribed by La.C.Cr.P. Art. 920(2). ⁴

We have examined the pleadings and proceedings for discoverable error and have found none.

Accordingly, the defendant's conviction and sentence are affirmed.

1 La.R.S. 14:98 provides:

A. Operating a vehicle while intoxicated is the operating of any motor vehicle, aircraft, vessel or other means of conveyance while under the influence of alcoholic beverages, narcotic drugs, central nervous system stimulants, hallucinogenic drugs or barbiturates.

B. Whoever operates a vehicle while intoxicated is guilty of a crime and upon conviction shall be fined not less than one hundred dred twenty-five dollars and not more than four hundred dollars...