State v. Patin
| Decision Date | 23 May 2012 |
| Docket Number | No. 2011–KA–0488.,2011–KA–0488. |
| Citation | 95 So.3d 542 |
| Parties | STATE of Louisiana v. Morris PATIN. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Leon A. Cannizzaro, Jr., District Attorney, Matthew Caplan, Assistant District Attorney, New Orleans, LA, for State of Louisiana/Appellee.
David W. Price, Mario E. Guadamud, Baton Rouge Capital Conflict Office, Baton Rouge, LA, for Defendant/Appellant.
(Court composed of Judge JAMES F. McKAY III, Judge TERRI F. LOVE, Judge ROSEMARY LEDET).
[4 Cir. 1]In this criminal case, Morris Patin appeals his guilty plea and sentence to manslaughter, asserting that the trial court erred by denying his motion to quash the charge against him based upon the violation of his constitutional and statutory rights to a speedy trial.
After finding that neither of these claims has merit, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Morris Patin and Eugene Thomas were indicted on February 28, 2002, for the first degree murder of Christopher McCrory. They pled not guilty at their arraignment on March 6, 2002. The case was reset for determination of counsel for both defendants, and both defendants appeared with counsel on May 10, 2002. The court held motion hearings on June 14 and July 10, 2002, and at the conclusion of the latter hearing, the court denied the motions to suppress. The court set trial for August 13, 2002. Trial was reset several times after that, and on October 31, 2002, the State nolle prosequied the charges.
On October 17, 2002, the State obtained a superseding first degree murder indictment against Patin, Thomas, and Eric McCormick, a charge to which they [4 Cir. 2]pled not guilty. This is the case at bar. Each defendant had separate counsel who filed various pretrial motions. In May 2003, the court severed the trial of McCormick from that of Patin and Thomas. In October 2003, the State brought McCormick to trial, which ended in a mistrial. The State then indicated that it would try Patin and Thomas. Trial as to these two defendants was reset several times, sometimes by joint motion. The final continuance prior to Hurricane Katrina reset the trial to September 12, 2005.
The next action in the case occurred when the State set a status hearing for June 30, 2006. Counsel for Patin withdrew, and new counsel enrolled. In August 2006, McCormick moved to quash the charge against him. The court granted McCormick's motion in September 2006, and the State appealed the ruling. However, the State subsequently dismissed its appeal because McCormick died.
The court set trial for Patin and Thomas for November 13, 2006. On that date, counsel for Thomas withdrew, and the matter was reset again. When new counsel for Thomas enrolled, he filed more pretrial motions. Trial was set for June 25, 2007, but then was continued to November 5. On that date, counsel for Patin withdrew, and the trial was reset on joint motion by Patin and the State, over Thomas' objection. New counsel eventually enrolled and filed several more pretrial motions. The matter was reset several times, and on April 20, 2009, the State amended the indictment to charge Thomas and Patin with second degree murder. Counsel for Thomas withdrew; new counsel enrolled in July and filed a motion to sever the trials of Thomas and Patin. The matter was reset several more times, and on August 31, Patin filed a motion to quash the indictment. Thomas filed his motion to quash on September 3. The court heard the matter on September 10 and denied the motions on statutory grounds. The court held open [4 Cir. 3]the opportunity for an evidentiary hearing on each defendants' constitutional claim. On October 28, 2009, after denying the defendants' motion for an evidentiary hearing, the court denied both motions to quash. The court set a trial date of February 1, 2010. Both defendants objected and noted their intent to seek writs, and the court granted the defendants until November 30. On November 19, the court granted Thomas' motion to sever. The State objected and noted its intent to seek writs, and the court granted the State until December 21 to do so, staying all proceedings while the State sought writs. The State failed to seek relief, and on January 4, 2010, the court set the matter for January 13 for the State to indicate which defendant it intended to try first. On January 13, the State elected to try Patin first, and the court ruled that all dates previously set were to remain in effect.
This court granted both Patin's and Thomas' writ applications, vacated the court's denial of their motions to quash, and remanded the cases with the instructions to allow the defendants to present evidence on the issue of prejudice from the delay in going to trial. State v. Patin, unpub. 2009–1620 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1/29/10); State v. Thomas, unpub. 2009–1647 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1/27/10).
On remand, the court heard the matter on February 4, 2010. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court granted both motions to quash only on the issue of the violation of the defendants' constitutional right to speedy trial. The State noted its intent to appeal, and the court stayed the release of the defendants to allow the State time to file its appeal. On February 10, the court denied the defendants' motion for release pending the State's appeal. Both defendants sought writs, which this court granted, ordering the defendants' release. State v. Thomas, unpub. 2010–0205 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2/11/10); State v. Patin, unpub. 2010–0206 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2/11/10). However, the Supreme Court reversed this court's release, [4 Cir. 4]ordering a stay of their release until further orders from that Court. The Court then ordered the State to file its appeal “forthwith” and this court to give the State's appeal expedited consideration. State v. Patin, 2010–0335 (La.2/24/10), 28 So.3d 261.
Thomas filed a writ in this court seeking reversal of the trial court's denial of his motion to quash on statutory speedy trial grounds. This court denied writs, noting that it did not have jurisdiction to consider the application because of the State's pending appeal. State v. Thomas, unpub. 2010–0303 (La.App. 4 Cir. 3/1/10). Thomas sought relief in the Supreme Court. The Court granted the writ, remanding the writ to this court to be considered as a cross-application to the State's appeal. The Court also directed this court to give the appeal expedited consideration. State v. Thomas, 2010–0586 (La.3/31/10), 31 So.3d 353. Patin, however, did not seek review of the trial court's denial of his motion to quash on statutory grounds.
This court subsequently consolidated the State's appeals as to Patin and Thomas, and it reversed the trial court's rulings as to both defendants. State v. Thomas, 2010–0528, 2010–0529 (La.App. 4 Cir. 7/15/10), 54 So.3d 1. The Supreme Court denied writs, State v. Thomas, 2010–1517 (La.9/3/10), 44 So.3d 702, and the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed the subsequent writ, Thomas v. Louisiana, ––– U.S. ––––, 131 S.Ct. 556, 178 L.Ed.2d 411(2010).
On remand, a jury found Thomas not guilty on October 7, 2010. On October 18, 2010, the State amended the bill of indictment to charge Patin with manslaughter, and Patin pled guilty as charged under North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 91 S.Ct. 160, 27 L.Ed.2d 162 (1970) and under State v. Crosby, 338 So.2d 584 (La.1976), reserving his right to appeal the trial court's denial of his motion to quash. The [4 Cir. 5]court sentenced him to serve ten years at hard labor and granted his motion for appeal.
The facts of the offense are relatively unknown; the record contains neither any pretrial suppression hearing transcripts nor any police reports other than a short one involving the arrest of McCormick, a former codefendant. Patin and Thomas were charged with shooting Christopher McCrory, Malcolm Green, and Troy Steen on Parc Brittany Court on December 23, 2001. McCrory died as a result of the shooting. Green and Steen survived their wounds, but Green is now deceased. Green and Steen apparently gave statements indicating that there were three gunmen involved in the shooting. Patin became a suspect, and on December 26, 2001, Patin surrendered to the police. Thomas, his brother, accompanied him to the police station and gave a statement. He and Patin were both arrested for the murder. A grand jury returned an indictment charging both of them for the first degree murder of McCrory. A Crime Stopper tip in August 2002 led to the arrest of Eric McCormick as the third shooter, and in October 2002 the grand jury returned a new indictment charging all three defendants with first degree murder.
Patin's and Thomas' defense was that they were at the Lake Forest Plaza mall at the time of the shooting.
Because Patin's constitutional speedy trial claim is based on the length of time he has been incarcerated for the present offense, see State v. Page, 95–2401 (La.App. 4 Cir. 8/21/96), 680 So.2d 700, the following is a chronology of all the events leading up to the present appeal:
Magistrate # 396048
12/27/01 First appearance; bond set; rule to show cause set for 1/8/02
[4 Cir. 6]1/8/02 Rule to show cause reset 1/11/02
1/11/02 Preliminary hearing set for 1/18/02
1/18/02 Preliminary hearing reset to 1/25/02
1/25/02 Patin represented by J.C. Lawrence; probable cause found; rule to show cause set for 2/27/02
2/27/02 Rule to show cause reset to 3/1/02
# 428–349
2/28/02 Patin and Thomas indicted for 14:30
3/1/02 Case allotted to Section D 3/6/02 Both defendants appeared and pled not guilty; hearing to determine counsel for both set for 3/27/02
3/27/02 Reset for a status hearing on 4/12/02
4/4/02 Status hearing reset to 4/10/02
4/10/02 Motion hearing set 5/10/02
5/10/02 Patin appeared with counsel Sonny Armond; Thomas appeared with counsel Clyde Merritt of the Orleans Indigent Defender Program; reset motions to 6/13/02
6/13/02 Reset motions to 6/14/02
6/14/02 More motions heard, to be completed on 7/10/02;...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tijerina v. Louisiana
...was pending would have continued to suspend the limitations period, just as it did when Tijerina sought review. State v. Patin, 95 So.3d 542, 553 (La. App. 4th Cir. 2012). The State would have had no less than one year from conclusion of that appellate review, if successful, to bring Tijeri......
-
State v. Simmons
... ... This cause beyond control of the state interrupted the two-year prescriptive period in which to bring defendant to trial. La.C.Cr.P. art. 579(A)(2) ; State v. Patin, 11-0488, p. 18 (La.App. 4 Cir. 5/23/12), 95 So.3d 542, 552 (Hurricane Katrina interrupted three-year prescriptive period to bring capital murder defendant to trial until jury trials resumed in Orleans Parish); State v. Brazile, 06-1611, p. 4 (La.App. 4 Cir. 5/30/07), 960 So.2d 333, 336 (same), ... ...
-
State v. Joseph
...C.Cr.P. art. 578 time limitation until new counsel is appointed or retained. See State v. Patin, 11-0488, p. 19 (La. App. 4 Cir. 5/23/12), 95 So.3d 542, 553; see also Brooks, 02-0792, p. 9, 838 So.2d at 784. Applying the foregoing to the record of this case, we find that the two-year time l......
-
State v. Stevens
... ... crevasses in the levees of the Mississippi river ... ") ... This cause beyond control of the state interrupted the ... two-year prescriptive period in which to bring defendant to ... trial. La.C.Cr.P. art. 579(A)(2); State v. Patin, ... 11-0488, p. 18 (La.App. 4 Cir. 5/23/12), 95 So.3d 542, 552 ... (Hurricane Katrina interrupted three-year prescriptive period ... to bring capital murder defendant to trial until jury trials ... resumed in Orleans Parish); State v. Brazile, ... 06-1611, p. 4 ... ...