 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Chestnut11/29/2005
Panel composed of Judges James L. Cannella, Marion F. Edwards, and Susan M. Chehardy
AFFIRMED
Harold C. Chestnut, Jr. appeals his conviction of DWI-third offense. We affirm.
The defendant was charged with violation of La.R.S. 14:98, driving while intoxicated, third offense, and pleaded guilty as charged on November 10, 2004, specifically reserving his rights to appeal the trial court's denial of his motion to quash, pursuant to State v. Crosby, 338 So.2d 584 (La. 1976). In the motion to quash he asserted the invalidity of one of the predicate offenses used to enhance his offense.
The conviction of DWI-3, the offense now before us, took place on November 10, 2004 in the 24th Judicial District Court for the Parish of Jefferson, under Case No. 04-4465. The predicate convictions are Case No. 264867, December 16, 1999, Ascension Parish Court; and Case No. F1294177, March 28, 2000, First Parish Court of Jefferson Parish. The March 28, 2000 conviction is the basis for the defendant's Motion to Quash.
The defendant contends that the March 28, 2000 conviction is invalid because (1) the ad hoc judge who took his plea in that case was not an elected judge and, hence, did not have authority to accept his plea; and (2) that the ad hoc judge in that case failed to properly advise him of his constitutional rights prior to accepting the guilty plea. In opposition, the State asserts the subject plea was constitutionally obtained.
VALIDITY OF PLEA BEFORE NON-ELECTED JUDGE
The defendant asserts that the lawyer sitting as an ad hoc judge in First Parish Court on the March 28, 2000 conviction did not have authority to accept a guilty plea. In support of this claim the defendant cites State v. O'Reilly, 00-2864 (La. 5/15/01), 785 So.2d 768. In O'Reilly, the Louisiana Supreme Court declared unconstitutional the portion of La.R.S. 13:719 that purported to grant to commissioners of the 22nd Judicial District Court the authority to conduct trials, accept pleas, and impose sentences in misdemeanor cases. The court held that the statute could not grant commissioners the power to make an ultimate determination in a case, because such constitutes a judicial power restricted by our state constitution to elected judges of authorized courts. "The power to make the ultimate determination in a case must be exercised by duly elected judges. The commissioner, an unelected official, cannot lawfully exercise the adjudicatory power of the state." O'Reilly, 00-2864 at 7, 785 So.2d at 774.
The defendant argues that "while the Louisiana Supreme Court has the authority to appoint ad hoc judges from a pool of persons who have been previously elected or presently serve as elected judges, its appointment of a lawyer, who had not ever before been elected by the people, violated his right to be tried be one lawfully exercising the adjudicatory power of the state."
Although the O'Reilly decision declared it unconstitutional for non-elected court commissioners to exercise the final adjudicatory power the State accords to elected judges, it did not invalidate the pleas of the defendants in the cases subsumed within the O'Reilly appeal. Rather, it applied the "de facto officer doctrine" to uphold the convictions:
The de facto officer doctrine confers validity upon acts performed by a person acting under the color of official title even though it is later discovered that the legality of that person's appointment or election to office is deficient. The de facto doctrine springs from the fear of the chaos that would result from multiple and repetitious suits challenging every action taken by every official whose claim to office coul
Page 1 2 Louisiana DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|