Opinion
NO. 2016 KW 1476
03-09-2017
STATE OF LOUISIANA v. STEVEN DON RE
In Re: Steven Don Re, applying for supervisory writs, 22nd Judicial District Court, Parish of St. Tammany, No. 525,815. BEFORE: WELCH, CRAIN AND HOLDRIDGE, JJ.
WRIT GRANTED. A review of the applicable Boykin transcripts, the Baton Rouge Police Department incident report, the St. Tammany Parish bill of information, and the State's response reflects that relator was subjected to double jeopardy in violation of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, § 15 of the Louisiana Constitution when he pled guilty on January 16, 2013 to theft of a motor vehicle in St. Tammany Parish, as he had already pled guilty on July 12, 2012 to unauthorized use of the same motor vehicle in East Baton Rouge Parish. In light of the fact that the State concedes that relator's double jeopardy argument has merit, we find that the interests of justice require this Court to reverse relator's conviction, habitual adjudication, and sentence for theft of a motor vehicle. Relator is ordered discharged as to this conviction and sentence only.
GH
JEW
Crain, J., dissents and would deny the writ application. Double jeopardy is a claim of trial error properly cognizable in an application for postconviction relief. See La. Code Crim. P. art. 930.3(3). Relator raised the double jeopardy claim more than two years after his conviction and sentence became final, and relator's late realization of the claim does not constitute an exception to the time limitation set forth in La. Code Crim. P. art. 930.8(A). See State v. Luminals, 2010-1780 (La. 3/25/11), 61 So.3d 660. Accordingly, I find that relator waived his double jeopardy claim, precluding the claim from review. See State v. Davis, 2014-478(La. App. 3d Cir. 9/10/14), 159 So.3d 482, 485, writ denied, 2014-2113 (La. 5/1/15), 169 So.3d 371. See also Madaio v. United States, 397 Fed. Appx. 568 (11th Cir. 2010) (per curiam); Wallace v. Lockhart, 12 F.3d 823, 825 (8th Cir. 1994). COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT /s/_________
DEPUTY CLERK OF COURT
FOR THE COURT
Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969).