multiple bill hearing in Louisiana

2000As noted by this court's decision in State v. Henry, 96-1280 p. 7 (La. 4 Cir. 3/11/98), 709 So.2d 322 , 325-26: "To obtain a multiple offender conviction, the State is required to establish both the prior felony conviction and that the defendant is the same person convicted of that felony.

2000State v. Westbrook, 392 So.2d 1043 (La. 1980); State v. Henry, 96-1280 (La.App. 4 Cir. 3/11/98) , 709 So.2d 322 . *839 In the predicate at issue, the fingerprints from the certified arrest register matched the appellant's prints taken immediately prior to the multiple bill hearing.

1994State v. McIntyre, 496 So.2d 1204 (La.App. 5th Cir.1986); State v. Gilbert, 520 So.2d 1184 (La.App. 5th Cir.1988) appeal after remand 535 So.2d 1313 (La.App. 5th Cir. 1988); State v. Jackson, 527 So.2d 1039 (La.App. 5th Cir.1988).

1990State v. McIntyre, 496 So.2d 1204 (La.App. 5th Cir.1986); State v. Gilbert, 520 So.2d 1184 (La.App. 5th Cir.1988) appeal after remand 535 So.2d 1313 (La.

1994State v. McIntyre, 496 So.2d 1204 (La.App. 5th Cir.1986); State v. Gilbert, 520 So.2d 1184 (La.App. 5th Cir.1988) appeal after remand 535 So.2d 1313 (La.App. 5th Cir. 1988); State v. Jackson, 527 So.2d 1039 (La.App. 5th Cir.1988).

1990State v. McIntyre, 496 So.2d 1204 (La.App. 5th Cir.1986); State v. Gilbert, 520 So.2d 1184 (La.App. 5th Cir.1988) appeal after remand 535 So.2d 1313 (La.

1994State v. McIntyre, 496 So.2d 1204 (La.App. 5th Cir.1986); State v. Gilbert, 520 So.2d 1184 (La.App. 5th Cir.1988) appeal after remand 535 So.2d 1313 (La.App. 5th Cir. 1988); State v. Jackson, 527 So.2d 1039 (La.App. 5th Cir.1988).

1990State v. McIntyre, 496 So.2d 1204 (La.App. 5th Cir.1986); State v. Gilbert, 520 So.2d 1184 (La.App. 5th Cir.1988) appeal after remand 535 So.2d 1313 (La.

1992State v. Thompson, 539 So.2d 1008 (La.App. 4th Cir.1989), writ denied, 544 So.2d 399 (La.1989).

1991State v. Thompson, 539 So.2d 1008 (La.App. 4th Cir.1989), writ denied, 544 So.2d 399 (La.1989).

1992In State v. Desmond, 524 So.2d 147 (La.

1990State v. Desmond, 524 So.2d 147 (La.App. 4th Cir.1988); State v. Firmin, 522 So.2d 1181 (La.App. 4th Cir.1988), writ denied 532 So.2d 759 (La. 1988).

1992State v. Thompson, 539 So.2d 1008 (La.App. 4th Cir.1989), writ denied, 544 So.2d 399 (La.1989).

1991State v. Thompson, 539 So.2d 1008 (La.App. 4th Cir.1989), writ denied, 544 So.2d 399 (La.1989).

1992La.Code Crim.Proc.Ann. art. 841 (West 1984); State v. Talbert, 416 So.2d 68 (La.1982); State v. Nelson, 544 So.2d 13 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1989).

1989State v. Martin, 427 So.2d 1182 (La.1983); State v. Talbert, 416 So.2d 68 (La.1982); State v. Smith, supra. In the interest of judicial economy, this Court has reviewed the sufficiency of the predicate guilty plea by evaluating the copy of the colloquy attached to the State’s brief.

1992In contrast, in both State v. Thompson, supra, and State v. Patterson, supra, delays of four and three months were held to be not untimely.

1991In contrast, in both State v. Thompson, supra, and State v. Patterson, supra, delays of four and three months were held to be not untimely.

2016Ms. Sallah conducted cross-examination at the multiple bill hearing and objected to the sentence imposed by the trial court. .In Dorthey, 623 So.2d at 1280-1281 , the Louisiana Supreme Court held that the courts have the power to declare minimum’ sentences required by the Habitual Offender Law unconstitutional, and the trial court must reduce a defendant's sentence to one not constitutionally excessive if the trial court finds that the sentence mandated by the Habitual Offender Law "makes no measurable contribution to acceptable goals of punishment” or is nothing more than "the purposeful impo

1999After a multiple bill hearing, the defendant was adjudicated a third felony offender and according to State v. Dorthey, 623 So.2d 1276 (La.1993) was sentenced to serve fifteen years at hard labor.

2016The case of State v. Simmons, 2013-0312 (La.App. 4 Cir. 10/16/13) , 126 So.3d 692 , involved a delay in both the filing of the multiple bill of information as well as a delay in holding the multiple bill hearing.’ Recently,’ in State v. Richardson, 2014-0754, pp. 8-9 (La.App. 4 Cir. 11/26/14), 155 So.3d 87, 92 , writ denied, 2015-0105 (La.11/6/15), 180 So.3d 306 , this Court summarized the procedural history of Simmons: ....

2016The case of State v. Simmons, 2013-0312 (La.App. 4 Cir. 10/16/13) , 126 So.3d 692 , involved a delay in both the filing of the multiple bill of information as well as a delay in holding the multiple bill hearing.’ Recently,’ in State v. Richardson, 2014-0754, pp. 8-9 (La.App. 4 Cir. 11/26/14), 155 So.3d 87, 92 , writ denied, 2015-0105 (La.11/6/15), 180 So.3d 306 , this Court summarized the procedural history of Simmons: ....

2015State v. Jerome, 03-126, p. 3 (La.App. 5 Cir. 4/29/03), 845 So.2d 1194, 1196 .

2013State v. Jerome, 03-126, p. 3 (La.App. 5 Cir. 4/29/03), 845 So.2d 1194, 1196 .

2014Henderson parallels his case to State v. Santee, 02-0693 (La.App. 4 Cir. 12/4/02) , 834 So.2d 533 , where this court affirmed the defendant’s conviction for possession of cocaine, but vacated his adjudication as a multiple offender and remanded the matter because the defendant objected to the sufficiency of the evidence to prove the allegations of the multiple bill, and the record failed to contain the multiple bill exhibits for this court’s review. 11 ¡According to Henderson, at the 25 February 2012 hearing as to the multiple bill, he challenged whether the state identified him as the person

2006Similarly, in State v. Santee, 02-0693 (La.App. 4 Cir. 12/04/02) , 834 So.2d 533 , this court held that a defendant’s adjudication and sentence under the multiple offender statute had to be reversed in light of the fact that those exhibits introduced by the state at the multiple bill hearing could not be located for the appellate record.

2014This court has recognized that in considering whether a delay in holding a multiple bill hearing is reasonable, the four factors articulated in Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 , 92 S.Ct. 2182 , 33 L.Ed.2d 101 (1972), may be considered, “which are: the length of delay, the reason for the delay, an assertion of the right, and prejudice to the defendant.” State v. Simmons, 13-0312, p. 9 (La.App. 4 Cir. 10/16/13), 126 So.3d 692, 698 .

2014This court has recognized that in considering whether a delay in holding a multiple bill hearing is reasonable, the four factors articulated in Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 , 92 S.Ct. 2182 , 33 L.Ed.2d 101 (1972), may be considered, “which are: the length of delay, the reason for the delay, an assertion of the right, and prejudice to the defendant.” State v. Simmons, 13-0312, p. 9 (La.App. 4 Cir. 10/16/13), 126 So.3d 692, 698 .

2013In so finding, this court reasoned that “[t]he application of |1sthe Broussard doctrine is a fact-specific inquiry depending on the particular circumstances of each case.” Id., 96-0084 at p. 4, 695 So.2d at 543 . 13 Two types of delays can be attributable to the State in the instant case-the delayed filing of the multiple bill of information and the delayed scheduling of the multiple bill hearing.

2013In so finding, this court reasoned that “[t]he application of |1sthe Broussard doctrine is a fact-specific inquiry depending on the particular circumstances of each case.” Id., 96-0084 at p. 4, 695 So.2d at 543 . 13 Two types of delays can be attributable to the State in the instant case-the delayed filing of the multiple bill of information and the delayed scheduling of the multiple bill hearing.

2009State v. Taylor, 03-1272, p. 14 (La.App. 5 Cir. 3/30/04), 880 So.2d 831, 840 , writ denied, State ex rel.

2009State v. Taylor, 03-1272, p. 14 (La.App. 5 Cir. 3/30/04), 880 So.2d 831, 840 , writ denied, State ex rel.

2007In any event, this court rejected a similar claim in Dozier: "However, as noted in State v. Williams, 02-2189 (La.App. 4 Cir. 6/4/03) , 849 So.2d 799 , there is no requirement that the State submit its documentation to the defense prior to the multiple bill hearing.

2006However, as noted in State v. Williams, 2002-2189 (La.App. 4 Cir. 6/4/03) , 849 So.2d 799 , there is no requirement that the State submit its documentation to the defense prior to the multiple bill hearing.

2002In this record, in response to a second request from this Court for production of the exhibits introduced into evidence at the multiple bill hearing, there is a notation from the Criminal Clerk of Court's office dated 8 July 2002, which reads: "No exhibits found in the Clerk's Office file." In State v. Cossee, 95-2218 (La.App. 4 Cir. 7/24/96) , 678 So.2d 72, 73 , this Court held that the failure to file a written response to the multiple bill as required by La.

2002In this record, in response to a second request from this Court for production of the exhibits introduced into evidence at the multiple bill hearing, there is a notation from the Criminal Clerk of Court's office dated 8 July 2002, which reads: "No exhibits found in the Clerk's Office file." In State v. Cossee, 95-2218 (La.App. 4 Cir. 7/24/96) , 678 So.2d 72, 73 , this Court held that the failure to file a written response to the multiple bill as required by La.

2001In State v. Morris, 94-0553, at pp. 3-4, 645 So.2d at 1297 [ (La.App. 4 Cir. 11/17/94), 645 So.2d 1295 ], this court found that a delay of five months between the defendant's guilty plea and the holding of the multiple bill hearing was not unreasonable and did not prejudice the defendant because the State was delayed by having to wait for documents and because the defendant knew he would be multiple billed when he pleaded guilty.

2000In State v. Morris , 94-0553 at pp. 3-4, 645 So.2d at 1297 , this court found that a delay of five months between the defendant's guilty plea and the holding of the multiple bill hearing was not unreasonable and did not prejudice the defendant because the State was delayed by having to wait for documents and because the defendant knew he would be multiple billed when he pleaded guilty.

2001In State v. Langlois, 96-0084, pp. 7-8 (La.App. 4 Cir. 5/21/97), 695 So.2d 544 -545, writ granted in part on other grounds and remanded, 97-1491 (La.11/14/97), 703 So.2d 1281 , the defendant, whose first multiple offender adjudication had been vacated, argued that the fifteen to seventeen month delay in holding a second multiple bill hearing was unreasonable.

2000In State v. Langlois, 96-0084 (La.App. 4 Cir. 5/21/97) , 695 So.2d 540 , writ granted *1118 in part on other grounds and remanded, 97-1491 (La.11/14/97), 703 So.2d 1281 , the defendant, whose first multiple offender adjudication had been vacated, argued that the fifteen to seventeen month delay in holding a second multiple bill hearing was unreasonable.

2000In State v. Franklin, 94-409 (La.App. 5 Cir. 12/14/94) , 648 So.2d 962 , writ denied, 95-0143 (La.5/19/95), 654 So.2d 1354 , the Fifth Circuit held that it could not review the defendant's excessive sentence claim where he filed a motion for reconsideration after the original sentence was imposed, but failed to file such a motion after he was resentenced as a multiple offender.

2000In State v. Lewis, 98-2575 (La.App. 4 Cir. 3/1/00) ; 755 So.2d 1025 , this court cited State v. Franklin, 94-409 (La.App. 5 Cir. 12/14/94) ; 648 So.2d 962 , writ denied, 95-0143 (La.5/19/95); 654 So.2d 1354 , in which the Fifth Circuit held that it could not review the defendant's excessive sentence claim where he filed a motion for reconsideration after the original sentence was imposed, but failed to file such a motion after he was re-sentenced as a multiple offender.

2000In State v. Franklin, 94-409 (La.App. 5 Cir. 12/14/94) , 648 So.2d 962 , writ denied, 95-0143 (La.5/19/95), 654 So.2d 1354 , the Fifth Circuit held that it could not review the defendant's excessive sentence claim where he filed a motion for reconsideration after the original sentence was imposed, but failed to file such a motion after he was resentenced as a multiple offender.

2000In State v. Lewis, 98-2575 (La.App. 4 Cir. 3/1/00) ; 755 So.2d 1025 , this court cited State v. Franklin, 94-409 (La.App. 5 Cir. 12/14/94) ; 648 So.2d 962 , writ denied, 95-0143 (La.5/19/95); 654 So.2d 1354 , in which the Fifth Circuit held that it could not review the defendant's excessive sentence claim where he filed a motion for reconsideration after the original sentence was imposed, but failed to file such a motion after he was re-sentenced as a multiple offender.