Opinion
NO. 18-K-244
01-29-2019
STATE OF LOUISIANA v. ERIC DARNELL WHITE
Susan Buchholz First Deputy Clerk IN RE STATE OF LOUISIANA APPLYING FOR SUPERVISORY WRIT FROM THE FORTIETH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF ST JOHN THE BAPTIST, STATE OF LOUISIANA, DIRECTED TO THE HONORABLE MADELINE JASMINE, DIVISION "A", NUMBER 17,402 Panel composed of Judges Fredericka Homberg Wicker, Stephen J. Windhorst, and John J. Molaison, Jr.
WRIT GRANTED; REMANDED
Relator, the State of Louisiana ("the State"), seeks review of the trial court's dismissal of an extradition proceeding against defendant, Eric Darnell White. Facts and Procedural History
On November 8, 2017, St. John the Baptist Parish Sheriff's Office was dispatched to 2916 Cambridge Drive, in Laplace, in reference to a disturbance. While en route to this location, deputies encountered defendant, who was stopped in the roadway and flagged deputies down. Dispatch informed the deputies that defendant was involved in the disturbance at 2916 Cambridge Drive. While conducting an investigation, Deputy Jackson advised dispatch of defendant's name, date of birth, and the last four digits of his social security number. Dispatch performed an NCIC check and advised Deputy Jackson that defendant was wanted on a fugitive warrant from Florida for human trafficking of juveniles. Defendant was advised of his rights and arrested.
On November 13, 2017, defendant appeared before the trial court for an extradition hearing. Defendant was given notice to appear for an extradition hearing on November 15, 2017.
On November 15, 2017, defendant appeared with counsel before the trial court to address his fugitive warrant. The trial court ordered defendant to be released on a $7,500 bond until the state of Florida produced the necessary extradition documents.
On January 16, 2018, the state of Florida, Office of the Governor, sent extradition documents to the Louisiana for the return of defendant to Florida.
On February 26, 2018, defendant appeared before the trial court on his scheduled appearance bond date to address his fugitive warrant. The trial court reset the matter to February 28, 2018, for an extradition hearing status. On February 28, 2018, the State submitted the governor's warrant to the trial court, defendant was remanded into custody, and defendant's bond was revoked. Defense counsel requested a full extradition hearing, which the trial court set for March 14, 2018.
On March 14, 2018, defense counsel stipulated that defendant was the person identified in the extradition documents. Defense counsel argued that defendant should be discharged because: (1) the State did not timely move for extradition within ninety (90) days from defendant's arrest under La. C.Cr.P. art. 270; and (2) the affidavit submitted in the extradition documents is insufficient as to form under La. C.Cr.P. art. 263. The State opposed, arguing that: (1) the extradition documents were sufficient under La. C.Cr.P. art. 263; (2) defendant does not meet the requirements for dismissal of the extradition proceedings under La. C.Cr.P. art. 268; (3) La. C.Cr.P. art. 267 contains the actual rights of an accused at an extradition hearing and the ninety-day period under La. C.Cr.P. art. 270 is not included; and (4) under La. C.Cr.P. art. 271, a governor's warrant is presumed valid. Therefore, the State argued that defendant should be released to the state of Florida. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court took the matter under advisement.
La. C.Cr.P. art. 270 provides: A. The judge shall commit the accused for thirty days if it appears, after a hearing in open court pursuant to Article 271, that there is reasonable ground to hold him awaiting extradition. The order of commitment shall recite the accusation. The accused shall be imprisoned in the parish jail until the term of his commitment expires or he is otherwise legally discharged, unless he gives bail as provided in Article 271. B. The judge may extend the commitment of the accused for an additional period, not to exceed sixty days, if such additional period of commitment is for the purpose of awaiting receipt of the extradition requisition or other necessary or proper papers needed for the extradition of the accused.
La. C.Cr.P. art. 271, in pertinent part provides:
On March 19, 2018, the trial court rendered judgment dismissing the extradition proceeding and ordering defendant released from custody. The trial court stated:
Our review of the paperwork suggests that the State of Florida was aware of the 90 day time limitation. In its January 16, 2018 letter to the State of Louisiana, the Florida representative indicated in bold lettering, "90th day on or about: 2/6/2018." The Louisiana Governor's warrant was signed on February 6, 2018. It is unclear why it took the State of Florida nearly sixty-nine (69) days to forward the necessary paperwork - neither was any explanation offered why the state, upon receipt of the paperwork failed to present it until February 26, 2018. Furthermore, there is nothing in the record to indicate that the state made any attempt to notify the Court of its receipt of the extradition documents before February 26, 2018. In State v. Ross, the Court found that the State of Texas failed to present the necessary paperwork in the prescribed time. They specifically found that "the law does not permit the state to hold indefinitely over the head of any accused a threat of extradition, whether or not he is imprisoned, or out on bail." The Court notes that
there is very little jurisprudence in this area, and no subsequent case law has held otherwise. Therefore, this Court finds that the extradition proceedings are untimely and must be dismissed and defendant released. (Footnotes and citations omitted.)
On May 3, 2018, the State filed this writ application contending that the trial court abused its discretion and/or prejudiced the State by its dismissal of the extradition proceeding and release of defendant. Discussion
For the reasons stated herein, we find the trial court erred in finding that the State did not timely present the necessary extradition documents and in dismissing the extradition proceeding against defendant.
Jurisprudence concerning extradition is limited in Louisiana. Under the facts of this case, we find that State v. Ross, 404 So.2d 440 (La. 1981) is instructive. In its original decision in Ross, supra, the Supreme Court held that the state of Texas failed to furnish the necessary extradition documents within the prescribed time under La. C.Cr.P. art. 270, dismissed the extradition proceeding, and discharged the defendant. Id. at 443.
However, on rehearing, the Supreme Court found that the basis of its prior decision was erroneous, reversed its decision to discharge the defendant, and remanded the matter for the trial court to hold an extradition hearing. Id. at 450. The Supreme Court held that its error was in its failure to recognize the point at which an extradition proceeding began, the length of time the state may detain an individual before and after extradition, and when an arrestee's right to request an extradition hearing begins. Id. at 450-451. The Court held that an "individual's right to request an extradition hearing does not arise until the extradition process has begun, i.e., when the governor of the demanding state requests the extradition of the individual." Id. at 451. The Court further held that a "defendant cannot initiate his own extradition, but is entitled to request a hearing to determine whether there are grounds for his extradition after his transfer from the asylum state has been requested by the demanding state." Id. The Court found that the trial court attempted to set a time limitation on the demanding state when the demanding state had not yet requested the defendant's extradition from Louisiana and the trial court was "not authorized to so limit the demanding state to thirty days from June 12" to present the necessary extradition documents. Id. The Supreme Court found that the confusion in this case occurred because defendant was arrested prior to the beginning of the extradition proceedings. Id. at 452.
We find, in this case, that the trial court's reliance on the ninety day period under La. C.Cr.P. art. 270 to dismiss defendant's extradition proceeding is misplaced. La. C.Cr.P. art. 270 does not specifically require an extradition proceeding to be dismissed if the necessary extradition documents are not furnished within ninety days. The article only states that upon failure to provide the documents a defendant will be "legally discharged," presumably from custody. La. C.Cr.P. art. 268 provides for the grounds for a discharge of defendant at an extradition hearing, namely: (1) the accused is not the person mentioned in the extradition documents; (2) the governor's warrant is not signed; or (3) a requirement of form under La. C.Cr.P. art. 263 has been met. These grounds are exclusive. None of the circumstances for a discharge of a defendant apply in this case. Here, the defendant stipulated as to identity, the governor's warrant was signed, and the governor's warrant is presumed valid under La. C.Cr.P. art. 271 B. Additionally, there is no provision in any of the extradition articles that require the State to turn over the extradition documents to the trial court prior to a hearing as stated by the trial court in her written reasons for judgment and therefore.
Further, the trial court erred in dismissing the extradition proceeding based on the State's alleged failure to timely submit the extradition documents within ninety days from the date of defendant's arrest. Upon review, we find that La. C.Cr.P. art. 270 only applies in situations where a defendant is arrested and held in custody while awaiting extradition proceedings. The ninety day time limitation is inapplicable under the facts of this case because: (1) a governor's warrant was obtained; (2) defendant was held in custody as required under La. C.Cr.P. art. 271; and (3) extradition proceedings occurred. In this case, defendant was initially arrest on a fugitive warrant and released on bail only seven days after his arrest. On March 18, 2018, the State submitted the governor's warrant and under La. C.Cr.P. art. 271 B, defendant was taken into custody and was ineligible for release on bail.
Even if this Court were to find that the ninety day time limitation under La. C.Cr.P. art. 270 applied, it appears the period of time would be calculated from the date of the La. C.Cr.P. art. 271 hearing until the extradition process began, i.e., when the governor of the demanding state requested the extradition of the individual. Defendant first appeared in the trial court on November 13, 2017, and the state of Florida demanded his return on January 16, 2018. The documents were received by Louisiana on the sixty-fifth day; therefore, the submission of the extradition documents was timely. Furthermore, if this Court were to apply the rationale under Ross, the extradition process did not begin until the state of Florida demanded the return of defendant and submitted the necessary extradition documents. Here, the state of Florida submitted extradition documents to Louisiana on January 16, 2018, therefore the submission of the documents at the extradition hearing on March 14, 2018 (i.e., fifty-eight days), would have likewise been timely.
As to defendant's argument to the trial court that the extradition documents were insufficient, we find this argument is without merit. Under La. C.Cr.P. art. 271, the governor's warrant, which included the extradition documents, is presumed to be valid. Any arguments defendant may have regarding sufficiency of evidence should be addressed in the demanding state, i.e., Florida.
For the reasons stated herein, we find the trial court erred in finding the State failed to timely submit the necessary extradition documents, dismissing the extradition proceeding, and releasing the defendant. Accordingly, we grant this writ application, reverse the trial court's decision dismissing the extradition proceeding, remand the matter for further proceedings, and order the defendant be taken into custody and held for an extradition proceeding at a date as early as practicable.
Gretna, Louisiana, this 29th day of January, 2019.
SJW
FHW
JJM
***
B. A governor's warrant issued under Article 265 shall be presumed to be valid. Notwithstanding the provisions of Paragraph A of this Article, once a warrant is issued, the person named in the warrant shall be held in custody at all times thereafter and shall not be eligible for release on bail.