State v. Passow, 136 So. 3d 12

Passow pled guilty to third-offense DWI under Crosby and received five years' hard labor.
He appealed the denial of his motion to quash two predicate offenses used for the fourth-offense charge.
The trial court denied the motion as to two predicates ( Vermilion Parish 2006-T2693; Lafayette Parish 2008-9157) and granted as to the other two.
The bill was amended to third-offense DWI and Passow pled guilty under Crosby, reserving review of the denial of the motion to quash.
The State relied on two Article 894 dispositions (suspended sentences) as predicates: Vermilion 2007 and Lafayette 2009.
The court held the Vermilion and Lafayette dispositions were final convictions and could serve as predicates; the motion to quash was denied; on review the sentence was amended to comply with 14:98D(l)(a).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether suspended-sentence predicates under Article 894 remain valid predicates.	Passow asserts no valid sentence exists under Article 894 to serve as predicate.	Passow contends the sentences were suspended and not final; thus invalid as predicates.	Predicates remained valid; court denied quash.
Whether the two predicate convictions were properly admitted as final convictions despite suspensions.	Passow argues suspensions undermine finality for predicate purposes.	State contends final sentences through Article 894 remain predicates and may be considered for multiple offender purposes.	Yes, they were properly treated as final convictions for predicate purposes.
Whether the sentence complies with 14:98D(l)(a) required minimum/maximum and fine provisions.	The five-year term with no mandatory $2,000 fine renders the sentence illegal or lenient.	Court had discretion within the statutory range; fine not specified in the amendment.	Sentence amended to five years at hard labor with no probation and a $2,000 fine.

State v. Odom, 861 So.2d 187 (La.App. 1 Cir. 2003) (clear abuse standard for factual/credibility on quash rulings; de novo for legal findings)
State v. Smith, 766 So.2d 501 (La. 2000) (de novo review of legal findings)
State v. Williams, 800 So.2d 790 (La. 2001) (mandatory-minimums and penalties considerations)
State v. Rome, 696 So.2d 976 (La. 1997) (sentence within statutory range; legality of penalties)
State v. Dorthey, 623 So.2d 1276 (La. 1993) (illegal sentence correction by appellate court)
State v. Finch, 733 So.2d 716 (La.App. 2 Cir. 1999) (convictions can serve as first-offense bases for subsequent prosecutions)