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. Maughan

Court of Appeals of Louisiana, First Circuit

June 4, 2018

STATE OF LOUISIANA
v.
ROY H. MAUGHAN JR. AND RANDY ANNY

          On Appeal from The 23rd Judicial District Court, Parish of Ascension, State of Louisiana Trial Court No. 35, 765 The Honorable Thomas J. Kliebert Jr., Judge Presiding

          Ricky L. Babin District Attorney Lindsey D. Manda Robin C. O' Bannon Charles S. Long Assistant District Attorneys Gonzales, Louisiana Attorneys for Plaintiff/Appellant, State of Louisiana.

          L.J. Hymel Michael Reese Davis Tim P. Hartdegen Baton Rouge, Louisiana Attorneys for Defendant/Appellee, Roy H. Maughan Jr.

          Vincent J. Sotile Jr. Attorney for Defendant/Appellee, Prairieville, Louisiana Randy Anny.

          BEFORE: GUIDRY, PETTIGREW, AND CRAIN, JJ.

          CRAIN, J.

         Roy H. Maughan Jr. and Randy Anny were charged, in relevant part, with forgery under Louisiana Revised Statute 14:72B (counts one, two, and three), and theft of $77, 500.00, a violation of Louisiana Revised Statute 14;67A (count four). The trial court, finding a double jeopardy violation, ordered the state to dismiss either count three or four. We vacate the order and remand for further proceedings.

         FACTS

         Because the matters before us were decided on a motion to dismiss filed before trial, the facts were not fully developed at trial. In counts one through three of the indictment, the state alleges Maughan and Anny submitted forged bids in the names of three companies to secure sewer work from the town of Sorrento. In count four, the state accuses the defendants of theft of $77, 500.00. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss either count three or four alleging double jeopardy. The trial court granted the motion, finding the same facts would be necessary to prove all elements of count three and one element of count four.[1] The state contends the ruling is premature. We agree.

         DISCUSSION

         The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article 1, § 15 of the Louisiana Constitution guarantee no person shall be twice placed in jeopardy for the same offense. See also La. Code Crim. P. art. 591. The double jeopardy clause prohibits (1) a second prosecution for the same offense after an acquittal or conviction, and (2) absent legislative expression otherwise, multiple sentences for the same offense. See State v. Frank, 16-1160 (La. 10/18/17), 234 So.3d 27, 30; defendants have not been previously acquitted or convicted of the charged offenses, their claim of double jeopardy relies on the prohibition against multiple punishments for the same offense. That claim, the state argues, cannot be decided in advance of trial.

         The subject case involves a single prosecution of multiple counts arising out of the same operative facts. The supreme court addressed a claim of double jeopardy in State v. Hall, 12-0601 (La. 6/29/12), 91 So.3d 302, 303 (per curiam\ where, like the present case, a defendant was charged with multiple crimes in a single prosecution. Before trial, the trial court granted a motion to quash alleging double jeopardy. Finding the ruling premature, the supreme court reversed, explaining:

A defendant may raise a claim of double jeopardy before trial by way of a motion to quash, as well as after trial by way of a motion in arrest of judgment. However, when a double jeopardy claim arises in the context of multiple offenses allegedly committed in a single criminal episode involving a single evidentiary nexus and charged in the same bill of information or indictment, and the state has thus made no effort to prosecute the charges seriatim, and a question arises as to whether the same evidence required to convict a defendant of one offense is also the same evidence required to convict him of the other crime, the court should defer ruling on a motion to quash until trial has fully developed the factual context of a claim that [the] prosecution has implicated the double jeopardy prohibition of multiple punishments for the same offense. In the event that the evidence at trial supports a claim ...

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.