APPLICATION FOR SUPERVISORY WRITS FROM THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL
DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF VERMILION, NO. 60527 HONORABLE
LAURIE HULIN, DISTRICT JUDGE
Stutes Fifteenth Judicial District Attorney Roger P.
Hamilton, Jr. Assistant District Attorney COUNSEL FOR: State
Lawrence C. Billeaud Attorney at Law COUNSEL FOR APPLICANT:
composed of Shannon J. Gremillion, Phyllis M. Keaty, and D.
Kent Savoie, Judges.
SHANNON J. GREMILLION, JUDGE.
Cody Ficklen, was one of fourteen defendants indicted on
August 26, 2016, for one count of conspiracy to racketeer, a
violation of La.R.S. 15:1353(D), one count of racketeering, a
violation of La.R.S. 15:1353(C), and one count of being a
member of a criminal street gang, a violation of La.R.S.
15:1403. Defendant filed a Motion to Quash and a Motion for
Bill of Particulars. Subsequently, he filed a First Amended
Motion to Quash. Following hearings on Defendant's
motions, the trial court denied Defendant's motion to
quash the indictment with written reasons.
now seeks review of the trial court's ruling, alleging
that the trial court erred when it denied his motion to quash
the indictment because the indictment was insufficient on its
face and the last alleged overt criminal act had prescribed
pursuant to La.Code Crim.P. art. 572.
following reasons, we find no error in the trial court's
ruling and deny the writ.
OF ERRORS ONE AND TWO
argues the trial court erred when it denied his motion to
quash the State's indictment, which alleged involvement
in a criminal enterprise and in a criminal street gang.
Defendant also claims that the State failed to establish the
existence of an enterprise. Defendant refers to the 1, 338
pages received from the State in response to his Motion for
Bill of Particulars, which contained a compilation of police
reports upon which the indictment was based.
primarily argues in brief to this court that even if there
was a criminal enterprise, the bill of indictment reflected
that Defendant's alleged last overt act in furtherance of
the alleged enterprise had prescribed pursuant to the statute
of limitations found in La.Code Crim.P. art. 572(A)(1).
hearings on Defendant's motion to quash the indictment,
Defendant argued that the indictment did not show that a
criminal "enterprise" existed as defined by La.R.S.
15:1352(B); accordingly, the indictment was deficient on its
face and should have been quashed. He further asserted that
the indictment did not show he was involved with said
enterprise when the indictment was filed on August 26, 2016.
He pointed out that the indictment alleged he had committed
seven overt acts in furtherance of the enterprise, the first
occurring in December 2005, and the last occurring in March
2008. Therefore, Defendant asserted that the last of the acts
alleged had prescribed pursuant to La.Code Crim.P. art.
572(A)(1), and the State, therefore, cannot show that he was
a member of a criminal enterprise or a criminal street gang.
Defendant's Motion to Quash, besides arguing the latest
alleged overt act had prescribed in 2006, and, therefore,
there was no proof he was a member of a criminal enterprise
or a street gang, he also specifically argued that the State
will not be able to prove the existence of a criminal
enterprise. However, as noted, Defendant also alleges that
the indictment and the State's response to
Defendant's Motion for Bill of Particulars failed to
prove that a criminal enterprise even existed. Accordingly,
we address both allegations Defendant argued in his Motion to
Quash and at the hearings on the motion.
general grounds for a motion to quash are:
(1) The indictment fails to charge an offense which is
punishable under a valid statute.
(2) The indictment fails to conform to the requirements of
Chapters 1 and 2 of Title XIII. In such case the court may
permit the district attorney to amend the indictment to
correct the defect.
(3) The indictment is duplicitous or contains a misjoinder of
defendants or offenses. In such case the court may permit the
district attorney to sever the indictment into separate
counts or separate indictments.
(4) The district attorney failed to furnish a sufficient bill
of particulars when ordered to do so by the court. In such
case the court may overrule the motion if a sufficient bill
of particulars is furnished within the delay fixed by the
(5) A bill of particulars has shown a ground for quashing the
indictment under Article 485.
(6) Trial for the offense charged would constitute double
(7) The time limitation for the institution of prosecution or
for the commencement ...