Motion to Quash-Time Limitations

8/22/2019 Motion to Quash-Time Limitations

1/9

STATE OF LOUISIANA * NUMBER: 12-04-0324 SECTION: II

*

* 19TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

VERSUS *

* PARISH OF EAST BATON ROUGE

*

JAMES SCHAFER * STATE OF LOUISIANA

***************************************************************************

MOTION TO QUASH

***************************************************************************

NOW INTO COURT, through undersigned counsel, comes defendant, JAMES

SCHAFER, who respectfully requests that this Honorable Court quash the Felony Bill of

Information filed in the captioned matter for the following reasons:

1.

On December 10, 2004, a Felony Bill of Information was filed charging the defendant,

JAMES SCHAFER, with the felony offense of Operating a Vehicle While Intoxicated:

Fourth Offense.

2.

To the best knowledge of undersigned counsel, the following is a time line summary

of activity in this matter:

A. On January 27, 2005, the captioned matter went before the Court forarraignment pursuant to previous assignment. The defendant having failed

to appear, a bench warrant was issued therein for the arrest of the

defendant.

B. On December 8, 2005, the defendant was convicted of Driving While

Intoxicated by the County Court at Law No. 5 of Hidalgo County, Texas;

Defendant was sentenced to two (2) years of community supervision.


2/9

C. On January 9, 2006, the defendant appeared before this Honorable

Court the bench warrant was recalled the defendant was found incontempt of court for his failure to appear and was sentenced to serve

twenty days in East Baton Rouge Parish Prison. The captioned matter then

came before the Court for arraignment, pursuant to previous assignment.

The defendant informed the Court of his intent to retain counsel; the Court

ordered that arraignment be continued until February 9, 2006.

D. On February 9, 2006, the captioned matter went before the Court forarraignment pursuant to previous assignment. The defendant having

failed to appear, a bench warrant was issued therein for the arrest of the

defendant.

E. On February 14, 2006, the bench warrant was recalled, the defendant

appearing before the Court. The captioned matter then came before the

Court for arraignment, pursuant to previous assignment. The defendantinformed the Court of his intent to retain counsel; the Court ordered that

arraignment be continued until April 3, 2006.

F. On April 3, 2006, the captioned matter went before the Court for

arraignment pursuant to previous assignment. The defendant having

failed to appear, a bench warrant was issued therein for the arrest of thedefendant.

3.

On July 20, 2007, as evidenced by the attached criminal records in State of

Texas vs James Andrew Johnson Schafer, bearing Number: CR-2573-98-D on the

Docket of the 206th Judicial District Court for the County of Hidalgo, State of

Louisiana James Schafer was sentenced, upon the revocation of the previously

imposed community supervision, to two (2) years imprisonment in the Institutional

Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice


3/9

Defendant, JAMES SCHAFER, respectfully shows that, in accordance with

Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure article 578 (2), a trial in this felony matter

must be commenced within two (2) years from the institution of the prosecution.

4.

Defendant, JAMES SCHAFER, further respectfully shows that, since the filing of the

Felony Bill of Information on December 10, 2004 and the trial date of August 16, 2006, (a

period of 18 months) there have been no interruption of the time limits caused by the actions

of the defendant.

5.

As evidenced herein, a trial was not commenced within one (2) year from the

institution of prosecution and, as required by law, the Felony Bill of Information filed in the

captioned matter must be quashed and the pending charges dismissed.

6.

WHEREFORE, defendant, JAMES SCHAFER, prays that, upon consideration of

this Motion To Quash, this Honorable Court quash the Felony Bill of Information filed

against him in the captioned matter and dismiss all pending charges.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

ROTHKAMM LAW FIRML P.L.C.

256 East Boulevard

Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70802

Telephone: (225) 336-0056

BY: ____________________________________

C. JAMES ROTHKAMM, JR.

La. Bar Roll No.: 20350


4/9

STATE OF LOUISIANA * NUMBER: 12-04-0324 SECTION: II

*

* 19TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

VERSUS *

* PARISH OF EAST BATON ROUGE

*

JAMES SCHAFER * STATE OF LOUISIANA

***************************************************************************

ORDER

***************************************************************************

CONSIDERING THE FOREGOING:

IT IS ORDERED that the City of Baton Rouge, through the Office of the City

Prosecutor, appear and show cause on the ________ day of ________________, 2008, at

________ oclock ___.m. why this Motion To Quash should not be granted and the

Misdemeanor Affidavit filed against the defendant, JAMES SCHAFER, should not be

quashed and all pending charges dismissed.

Baton Rouge, Louisiana, this _____ day of __________________, 2008.

__________________________________________

JUDGE, 19TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT


5/9

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a copy of the above and foregoing Motion To Quash and

Memorandum In Support, together with all attachments has been hand delivered to:

Art BoudreauxLisa Freeman Guidry

Office of the City Prosecutor

233 St. Louis StreetBaton Rouge, Louisiana 70802

Baton rouge, Louisiana this 16th day of August, 2006.

______________________________C. James Rothkamm, Jr.


6/9

STATE OF LOUISIANA NUMBER: 12-04-0324 SECTION: II

19TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

VERSUS

PARISH OF EAST BATON ROUGE

JAMES SCHAFER STATE OF LOUISIANA

***************************************************************************

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF

MOTION TO QUASH

***************************************************************************

MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT:

This matter comes before this Honorable Court on defendant, JAMES SCHAFERs

Motion to Quash the Misdemeanor Affidavit filed by the city of Baton Rouge, through the

Office of the city Prosecutor, on the grounds that this matter was not brought to Trial within

One (1) year from the date of institution of prosecution as required by Louisiana Code of

Criminal Procedure Article 578 (3).

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On February 23, 2005, a bill of information charging defendant, JAMES SCHAFER

with DWI First Offense, a misdemeanor, was filed in the captioned matter. In the ordinary

course of events, the City of Baton Rouge, through the Office of the City Prosecutor would

have had until February 23, 2006, in order to bring this matter to trial. La. C.Cr.P. Art. 578.

However, the trial of the Defendant has not commenced and is currently scheduled for August

16, 2006 which will be approximately 18 months subsequent to the institution of prosecution..

What has occurred since the filing of the Bill of Information is the following:

A. On February 28, 2005, the captioned matter was scheduled

for Arraignment. The defendant appeared throughundersigned counsel, plead Not Guilty and a Trial date of

August 3, 2005 was scheduled.

B. On August 3, 2005, the defendant and undersigned counselappeared in Court for Trial. However, witnesses for the City
http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=1000011&DocName=LACRART382&FindType=L&AP=&mt=Louisiana&fn=_top&sv=Split&vr=2.0&rs=WLW5.02http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=1000011&DocName=LACRART382&FindType=L&AP=&mt=Louisiana&fn=_top&sv=Split&vr=2.0&rs=WLW5.02


7/9

were not present and the Court granted a City Motion To

continue. This matter was re-scheduled for Trial onDecember 21, 2005.

C. On December 21, 2005, the defendant and undersigned

counsel appeared for Trial. After lengthy discussions

regarding a possible plea bargain failed to resolve thismatter and the parties prepared to proceed to Trial, the Court

(Division: C) recused itself.

D. On or about January 5, 2006, undersigned counsel was

advised that the captioned matter had been re-allotted toDivision B and a trial date of August 16, 2006 had been

scheduled.

APPLICABLE LAW

Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure Article 382

Article 382 - Methods of instituting criminal prosecutions

A. A prosecution for an offense punishable by death, or for an

offense punishable by life imprisonment, shall be instituted by

indictment by a grand jury. Other criminal prosecutions in a

district court shall be instituted by indictment or by information.

B. (1) A prosecution for violation of an ordinance and othercriminal prosecutions in a parish court shall be instituted by

affidavit or information charging any offense.

(2) A prosecution for violation of an ordinance and other

criminal prosecutions in a city court shall be instituted by

affidavit or information charging any offense supported by

an affidavit. (emphasis added)

(3) Criminal prosecutions in a juvenile court or family court

shall be instituted by affidavit, information, or indictment.

Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure Article 578


8/9

Article 578 - General rule

Except as otherwise provided in this Chapter, no trial shall be

commenced:

(1) (1) In capital cases after three years from the date of

institution of the prosecution;

(2) (2) In other felony cases after two years from

the date of institution of the prosecution; and

(3) (3) In misdemeanor cases after one year from the date of

institution of the prosecution. (emphasis added)

The offense charged shall determine the applicable limitation.

In this case, the prosecution ofJAMES SCHAFERwas instituted when on February

23, 2005, a Misdemeanor Affidavit was filed by the City Prosecutor. As evidenced by the

Court record, the defendant has not taken any action would would interrupt or suspend the

running of this one (1) year time limitation from the date of institution of prosecution to the

time of trial. Simply phrased, the captioned matter has not been brought to trial within the

prescribed one (1) year period.

A motion to quash is the proper procedural vehicle for challenging an untimely

commencement of trial. La.C.Cr.P. arts. 581 and 532(7); State v. Walgamotte, 415 So.2d 205

(La. 1982). Once a motion to quash has been filed for untimely prosecution the state is under

a heavy burden to show a legal cause for the delay. State v. Nations, 420 So.2d 967

(La.1982); Walgamotte, supra; State v. Guidry, 395 So.2d 764 (La.1981); State v. DeVito,

391 So.2d 813 (La.1980)(On Rehearing); State v. Driever, 347 So.2d 1132 (La.1977). In this

case, the defendant argues with merit that there is no basis under La.C.Cr.P. art. 579 for the

state to claim an interruption in the period of limitation.

La.C.Cr.P. art. 579 provides the statutory bases for relieving the state, under certain

circumstances, of the necessity of bringing a defendant to trial within the time limitations

expressed in La.C.Cr.P. art. 578. La.C.Cr.P. art. 579 provides:
http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=1000011&DocName=LACRART581&FindType=L&AP=&mt=Louisiana&fn=_top&sv=Split&vr=2.0&rs=WLW5.02http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=1000011&DocName=LACRART532&FindType=L&AP=&mt=Louisiana&fn=_top&sv=Split&vr=2.0&rs=WLW5.02http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=735&SerialNum=1982125453&FindType=Y&AP=&mt=Louisiana&fn=_top&sv=Split&vr=2.0&rs=WLW5.02http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=735&SerialNum=1982125453&FindType=Y&AP=&mt=Louisiana&fn=_top&sv=Split&vr=2.0&rs=WLW5.02http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=735&SerialNum=1982125453&FindType=Y&AP=&mt=Louisiana&fn=_top&sv=Split&vr=2.0&rs=WLW5.02http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=735&SerialNum=1982147765&FindType=Y&AP=&mt=Louisiana&fn=_top&sv=Split&vr=2.0&rs=WLW5.02http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=735&SerialNum=1982147765&FindType=Y&AP=&mt=Louisiana&fn=_top&sv=Split&vr=2.0&rs=WLW5.02http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=735&SerialNum=1982147765&FindType=Y&AP=&mt=Louisiana&fn=_top&sv=Split&vr=2.0&rs=WLW5.02http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?SerialNum=1982125453&FindType=Y&AP=&mt=Louisiana&fn=_top&sv=Split&vr=2.0&rs=WLW5.02http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=735&SerialNum=1981112556&FindType=Y&AP=&mt=Louisiana&fn=_top&sv=Split&vr=2.0&rs=WLW5.02http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=735&SerialNum=1981112556&FindType=Y&AP=&mt=Louisiana&fn=_top&sv=Split&vr=2.0&rs=WLW5.02http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=735&SerialNum=1980131537&FindType=Y&AP=&mt=Louisiana&fn=_top&sv=Split&vr=2.0&rs=WLW5.02http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=735&SerialNum=1980131537&FindType=Y&AP=&mt=Louisiana&fn=_top&sv=Split&vr=2.0&rs=WLW5.02http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=735&SerialNum=1980131537&FindType=Y&AP=&mt=Louisiana&fn=_top&sv=Split&vr=2.0&rs=WLW5.02http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=735&SerialNum=1977138614&FindType=Y&AP=&mt=Louisiana&fn=_top&sv=Split&vr=2.0&rs=WLW5.02http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=735&SerialNum=1977138614&FindType=Y&AP=&mt=Louisiana&fn=_top&sv=Split&vr=2.0&rs=WLW5.02http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=1000011&DocName=LACRART579&FindType=L&AP=&mt=Louisiana&fn=_top&sv=Split&vr=2.0&rs=WLW5.02http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=1000011&DocName=LACRART579&FindType=L&AP=&mt=Louisiana&fn=_top&sv=Split&vr=2.0&rs=WLW5.02http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=1000011&DocName=LACRART578&FindType=L&AP=&mt=Louisiana&fn=_top&sv=Split&vr=2.0&rs=WLW5.02http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=1000011&DocName=LACRART579&FindType=L&AP=&mt=Louisiana&fn=_top&sv=Split&vr=2.0&rs=WLW5.02http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=1000011&DocName=LACRART581&FindType=L&AP=&mt=Louisiana&fn=_top&sv=Split&vr=2.0&rs=WLW5.02http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=1000011&DocName=LACRART532&FindType=L&AP=&mt=Louisiana&fn=_top&sv=Split&vr=2.0&rs=WLW5.02http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=735&SerialNum=1982125453&FindType=Y&AP=&mt=Louisiana&fn=_top&sv=Split&vr=2.0&rs=WLW5.02http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=735&SerialNum=1982125453&FindType=Y&AP=&mt=Louisiana&fn=_top&sv=Split&vr=2.0&rs=WLW5.02http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=735&SerialNum=1982147765&FindType=Y&AP=&mt=Louisiana&fn=_top&sv=Split&vr=2.0&rs=WLW5.02http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=735&SerialNum=1982147765&FindType=Y&AP=&mt=Louisiana&fn=_top&sv=Split&vr=2.0&rs=WLW5.02http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?SerialNum=1982125453&FindType=Y&AP=&mt=Louisiana&fn=_top&sv=Split&vr=2.0&rs=WLW5.02http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=735&SerialNum=1981112556&FindType=Y&AP=&mt=Louisiana&fn=_top&sv=Split&vr=2.0&rs=WLW5.02http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=735&SerialNum=1980131537&FindType=Y&AP=&mt=Louisiana&fn=_top&sv=Split&vr=2.0&rs=WLW5.02http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=735&SerialNum=1980131537&FindType=Y&AP=&mt=Louisiana&fn=_top&sv=Split&vr=2.0&rs=WLW5.02http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=735&SerialNum=1977138614&FindType=Y&AP=&mt=Louisiana&fn=_top&sv=Split&vr=2.0&rs=WLW5.02http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=1000011&DocName=LACRART579&FindType=L&AP=&mt=Louisiana&fn=_top&sv=Split&vr=2.0&rs=WLW5.02http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=1000011&DocName=LACRART579&FindType=L&AP=&mt=Louisiana&fn=_top&sv=Split&vr=2.0&rs=WLW5.02http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=1000011&DocName=LACRART578&FindType=L&AP=&mt=Louisiana&fn=_top&sv=Split&vr=2.0&rs=WLW5.02http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=1000011&DocName=LACRART579&FindType=L&AP=&mt=Louisiana&fn=_top&sv=Split&vr=2.0&rs=WLW5.02


9/9

The period of limitation established by Article 578 shall be interrupted if:

The defendant at any time, with the purpose to avoid detection,apprehension, or prosecution, flees from the state, is outside

the state, or is absent from his usual place of abode within the

state;

or

The defendant cannot be tried because of insanity or because hispresence for trial cannot be obtained by legal process, or for any

other cause beyond the control of the state.

The periods of limitation established by Article 578 shallcommence to run anew from the date the cause of interruption

no longer exists.

CONCLUSION

As more than one year elapsed between the time prosecution for this misdemeanor

was instituted and the time defendant is scheduled for trial and because there is no legal

excuse for the delay in trial underLa.C.Cr.P. art. 579, the motion to quash should be

granted.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

ROTHKAMM LAW FIRML P.L.C.

256 East Boulevard

Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70802

Telephone: (225) 336-0056

BY: ____________________________________

C. JAMES ROTHKAMM, JR.

La. Bar Roll No.: 20350
http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=1000011&DocName=LACRART578&FindType=L&AP=&mt=Louisiana&fn=_top&sv=Split&vr=2.0&rs=WLW5.02http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=1000011&DocName=LACRART578&FindType=L&AP=&mt=Louisiana&fn=_top&sv=Split&vr=2.0&rs=WLW5.02http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=1000011&DocName=LACRART579&FindType=L&AP=&mt=Louisiana&fn=_top&sv=Split&vr=2.0&rs=WLW5.02http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=1000011&DocName=LACRART578&FindType=L&AP=&mt=Louisiana&fn=_top&sv=Split&vr=2.0&rs=WLW5.02http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=1000011&DocName=LACRART578&FindType=L&AP=&mt=Louisiana&fn=_top&sv=Split&vr=2.0&rs=WLW5.02http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=1000011&DocName=LACRART579&FindType=L&AP=&mt=Louisiana&fn=_top&sv=Split&vr=2.0&rs=WLW5.02

Motion to Quash-Time Limitations

Documents

Transcript of Motion to Quash-Time Limitations