State v. Waddell
102 So. 3d 1025
La. Ct. App.2012Background
- Waddell moved to quash a bill charging third-offense DWI under La. R.S. 14:98(D)(1)(a).
- He argued the first DWI conviction was more than ten years before the current offense and thus cannot be used for enhancement.
- Trial court denied the motion; appeal converted to a writ per court custom.
- Facts: first DWI arrest in 1996, guilty plea 2000, probation until 2002; second DWI arrest 2007, guilty 2010; third offense arrest 2010.
- Exclusions in the cleansing period include time awaiting trial and probation; conversion discusses ex post facto considerations.
- Court ultimately denies the writ and affirms the trial court’s denial of the motion to quash.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the first DWI a valid predicate under 14:98(F)(2)? | Waddell argues >10 years since first offense excludes it. | State contends exclusions govern cleansing period, not staleness of predicate. | Yes; the first offense can be used if within the cleansing period considering exclusions. |
| Does the cleansing period exclude probationary time and time awaiting trial? | Waddell contends only incarceration is excluded prior to 2008 amendment. | State argues exclusions apply to time not under legal restraints, including probation and awaiting trial. | Exclusions apply as stated; probation and waiting periods are excluded in computing the cleansing period. |
| Is the statute's 2008 amendment ex post facto problem for applying to past conduct? | Waddell claims applying amended 14:98(F)(2) to his pre-amendment conviction is ex post facto. | State asserts ex post facto not violated because the current offense is measured by the statute’s current interpretation. | No ex post facto violation; analysis uses current offense in light of statute’s structure. |
| Was the trial court’s denial of the motion to quash an abuse of discretion? | Waddell asserts the predicate time does not support enhancement. | State relies on trial court’s application of the cleansing period and exclusions. | No abuse; trial court’s discretionary decision affirmed. |
| Should the appeal be treated as a writ of certiorari rather than an appeal? | N/A | N/A | The appeal is converted to a writ; writ denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Hoerner, 88 So.3d 1128 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2012) (clarifies cleansing-period exclusions and restraints)
- State v. Warren, 91 So.3d 981 (La.App. 1 Cir. 2012) (time exclusions in cleansing period applied to determine predicate admissibility)
- State v. Carter, 42 So.3d 455 (La.App. 2 Cir. 2010) (statutory cleansing-period interpretation)
- State v. Love, 847 So.2d 1198 (La. 2003) (deference to trial court’s discretionary decisions; abuse standard on motion to quash)
- Weaver v. Graham, 450 U.S. 24 (U.S. 1981) (ex post facto framework for criminal statutes)
- State v. Rolen, 662 So.2d 446 (La. 1995) (analysis of applying statute changes to future conduct; current offense focus)