State of Louisiana v. Chaka Stewart
219 So. 3d 306
| La. | 2017Background
- Defendant was charged in 2011 with narcotics offenses and, separately, a 2011 drag-racing charge; the drag-racing case was consolidated to track the narcotics case.
- Defendant received actual notice to appear on May 17, 2012, but did not appear because he was in federal custody; the record repeatedly notes he was detained in federal custody.
- The State sought a writ ad prosequendum on July 23, 2012 (to the U.S. Marshals); no return action occurred and defendant remained absent.
- On July 23, 2013 the State filed a second writ specifically naming the Arkansas penitentiary where defendant was confined; defendant still did not appear.
- After further continuances and a bond-forfeiture hearing (April 30, 2014) with a certificate of incarceration from the surety, defendant moved to quash on speedy-trial/prescription grounds; the trial court granted the motion.
- The court of appeal reversed, holding the prescription period was interrupted by defendant’s failure to appear and did not restart until the State had notice of his custodial location; this Court affirmed the court of appeal and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Stewart's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendant’s May 17, 2012 failure to appear interrupted the two-year prescription period for commencing trial | The interruption applied; the two-year period was tolled when defendant failed to appear | Defendant argued the State’s delay in locating him meant prescription expired | Court held the failure to appear interrupted prescription under La. C.Cr.P. art. 578(A)(2) and the interruption controlled |
| Whether the State has an affirmative duty to locate an incarcerated defendant so the prescription period restarts | No affirmative duty; prescription restarts only when State receives notice of defendant’s custodial location | Argued the State should have located him (or that his incarceration made appearance impossible, impacting tolling) | Court held the State has no affirmative duty to search; prescription restarts when State has notice of custodial location (here July 23, 2013) |
| Whether La. C.Cr.P. art. 579(C) (effective Aug. 1, 2013) retroactively altered the notice requirements to restart prescription | If applicable retroactively, State would have to meet the stricter notice methods and prescription would not have restarted until later | Stewart argued the new Subpart C cannot be applied retroactively to a prosecution begun before its effective date | Court held Subpart C is substantive and not retroactive; it is immaterial here because the State had sufficient notice by July 23, 2013 to restart prescription |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Romar, 985 So.2d 722 (La. 2008) (State has no affirmative duty to search for a defendant who fails to appear; burden is on defendant/sureties)
- State v. Baptiste, 38 So.3d 247 (La. 2010) (limitations period restarts only when authorities receive notice of an incarcerated defendant’s location)
- State v. Groth, 483 So.2d 596 (La. 1986) (rules that add methods to interrupt prescription bear on speedy-trial rights and are not applied retroactively)
- State v. Fish, 926 So.2d 493 (La. 2006) (filing of motion to quash suspends prescription while appellate review of the prescription issue is pending)