State of Louisiana v. Dwayne Davis

STATE OF LOUISIANA                      *        NO. 2023-K-0723

VERSUS                                  *
                                                 COURT OF APPEAL
DWAYNE DAVIS                            *
                                                 FOURTH CIRCUIT
                                        *
                                                 STATE OF LOUISIANA
                                   *******



                APPLICATION FOR WRITS DIRECTED TO
            ST. BERNARD 34TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
                        NO. 999-2839, DIVISION “A”
                    Honorable William M. McGoey, Judge
                                  ******
                         Judge Rachael D. Johnson
                                  ******
(Court composed of Judge Paula A. Brown, Judge Dale N. Atkins, Judge Rachael
D. Johnson)


Dwayne Davis
St. Bernard Parish Jail
1900 Paris Road
Chalmette, LA 70043


      PRO SE DEFENDANT/RELATOR



                                                     WRIT GRANTED
                                                     December 22, 2023
RDJ
            In this criminal case, Relator Dwayne Davis (“Relator”) was arrested on
PAB
DNA   August 21, 2023, in St. Bernard Parish for the rape of a juvenile and issuing a

      worthless check. Relator alleges that he has yet to be formally charged by the State

      for these alleged crimes because Division “A” of the St. Bernard Parish has been

      “dragging its feet.” As a result, Relator filed a motion to quash and a motion for

      speedy trial with this Court. After reviewing the Relator’s writ application, we

      grant the Relator’s writ.

            According to La. C.Cr.P. art. 701(B)(1) and La. C.Cr.P. art. 701(B)(2), in

      pertinent part:

                          B. The time period for filing a bill of information
                   or indictment after arrest shall be as follows:
                                  ...
                          (1)(b) When the defendant is continued in custody
                   subsequent to an arrest, an indictment shall be filed
                   within one hundred twenty days of the arrest if the
                   defendant is being held for a felony for which the
                   punishment may be death or life imprisonment.
                                  ...
                          (2)(b) Failure to institute prosecution as provided
                   in Subparagraph (1) of this Paragraph shall result in
                   release of the defendant if, after contradictory hearing
                   with the district attorney, just cause for the failure is not
                   shown. If just cause is shown, the court shall reconsider
                   bail for the defendant. Failure to institute prosecution as
                   provided in this Subparagraph shall result in the release


                                                1
             of the bail obligation if, after contradictory hearing with
             the district attorney, just cause for the delay is not shown.

       Pursuant to La. C.Cr.P. art. 701B(1)(b) and La. C.Cr.P. art. 701B(2)(b), if

the Relator is not formally charged within one hundred and twenty days of his

arrest, and just cause for failing to formally charge the Relator is not shown, then

the Relator is to be released. In State v. Jones, the Defendant filed a written motion

for release as to eight of his charges pursuant to La. C.Cr.P. art. 701. State v. Jones,

2022-01358 (La. 11/8/22), 

, 976. The Court found that the State was

untimely in instituting their prosecution by bill of information for these charges, so

it ordered the Defendant to be released of the eight charges and he was

subsequently relieved of the bond obligations related to those charges.

      Currently, the details of whether the Relator has been formally charged and

whether the motion for speedy trial is applicable in this case are unclear. The

Relator was set to have a hearing on November 28, 2023. It is also unclear whether

the Relator was charged on November 28, 2023. Accordingly, we are granting the

Relator’s writ application and ordering the district court to set a hearing to address

the issues raised in this writ application.



                                                                  WRIT GRANTED




                                              2