Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State v. Daspit

Court of Appeals of Louisiana, First Circuit

November 1, 2017

STATE OF LOUISIANA
v.
TRACY P. DASPIT

         Appealed from the 22nd Judicial District Court in and for the Parish of St. Tammany, Louisiana Trial Court No. 534714 Honorable August J. Hand, Judge

          WARREN L. MONTGOMERY DISTRICT ATTORNEY MATTHEW CAPLAN ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY COVINGTON, LA ATTORNEYS FOR STATE OF LOUISIANA.

          DAVID R. PADDISON COVINGTON, LA ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLEE TRACY P. DASPIT.

          BEFORE: GUIDRY, PETTIGREW, AND CRAIN, JJ.

          PETTIGREW, J.

         In this case, the State of Louisiana challenges the trial court's August 4, 2016 order granting defendant's motion for expungement. For the reasons that follow, we reverse.

         FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

         On February 25, 2016, defendant, Tracy P. Daspit, filed a Motion to Set Aside Conviction and Dismiss Prosecution and a Motion for Expungement relative to his October 1, 2013 conviction for driving while intoxicated, first offense. On the front of the Motion to Set Aside Conviction and Dismiss Prosecution, there is a stamp by the St. Tammany Parish District Attorney's Office dated March 3, 2016, indicating opposition to same. The following handwritten notation is included: "Per C.Cr.P. Article 977D(2), expungement of a misdemeanor DWI shall occur only once during a 10-year period. This defendant had a misdemeanor DWI expunged on or about 10/15/08 under docket #389285." Said notation appears to be signed by Assistant District Attorney Bruce G. Dearing.

         The trial court heard arguments on the Motion to Set Aside Conviction and Dismiss Prosecution on April 5, 2016, after which the trial court granted said motion. On May 20, 2016, the District Attorney for the Parish of St. Tammany, appearing on behalf of the State of Louisiana, filed an Affidavit of Response, again setting forth the State's position that pursuant to Article 977D(2), defendant was not entitled to an expungement in this case because of his prior expungement in 2008.

         The Motion for Expungement proceeded to hearing on August 4, 2016. After considering the arguments of the parties, the trial court granted the motion for expungement, stating:

All right. Still have questions in my mind as to the eligibility, only because of the 10 year cleansing period and the date in which it commences, based upon the prior plea and expungement thereof. I'm going to grant the motion to expungement. But I'm not going to pass judgment on whether the department is going to honor that order. It may be an issue that needs to [be] addressed through [the] 19th Judicial District Court, in their venue, to determine whether that is going to be a successful order, and their expungement of the record.

         The trial court signed the Order of Expungement of Arrest/Conviction Record on August 4, 2016, but did not check the boxes on the form judgment regarding the specific relief that was granted in the proceeding.

         On August 30, 2016, the State filed a Motion for Suspensive Appeal and for Designation of Record, requesting that "a copy of the court record under docket number 389285" be included in the record on appeal. Defendant opposed this motion. Thereafter, on September 13, 2016, the trial court signed the order of appeal providing that the record on appeal would include "the proceedings designated in the foregoing Motion for Appeal." Defendant subsequently filed a Motion to Suppress the Record, arguing that the records from docket number 389285 had been expunged, and therefore, were confidential and not allowed to be produced under any exceptions under the law. This matter was set for hearing on November 3, 2016, at which time the trial court informed the parties that due to the matter being on appeal, the motion would be continued without date.

         This court issued a rule to show cause order on November 21, 2016, advising the parties that the August 4, 2016 judgment lacked specificity. The matter was remanded to the trial court for the limited purpose of allowing the trial court to sign an amended judgment to cure the defects in same. On December 1, 2016, the trial court corrected the order of expungement by specifically checking the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.