State Of Louisiana VS Kelly Vanderhoff and Sean Wade Woodard
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT 2007 KA 1091 STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS KELLY VANDERHOFF AND SEAN WADE WOODARD 4 DATE OFJUDGMENT November 2 2007 ON APPEAL FROM THE TWENTY SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT II NUMBER 353492 B ff vi o PARISH OF ST TAMMANY STATE OF LOUISIANA HONORABLE ELAINE W DIMICELI JUDGE Walter P Reed Counsel for District Attorney State of Louisiana Appellee Covington Louisiana Kathryn W Landry Baton Rouge Louisiana Jerry L Fontenot Covington Louisiana Counsel for Defendants Appellants Kelly Vanderhoffand Sean Wade Woodard BEFORE Disposition PARRO KUHN AND DOWNING JJ RULINGS ON MOTIONS TO QUASH REVERSED REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS KUHN 1 Defendants information with La R S Kelly Vanderhoff and Sean Woodard 14 93 2 3 quash pleas of not the bill of information years had elapsed brought guilty 2 Following State After appeals defendants granting the trial court motions granted the record to juveniles on of violation of a September 17 2002 alleged that prosecution and quash had to not s two been them quash the trial court and remand this than prosecuting defendants motions we reverse more they 578 barred the State from art reviewing filed charged by bill were In March 2007 defendants filed motions since the institution of hearing a was to Defendants motions trial thus La C CrP to degree cruelty The bill of information Defendants entered to of second one count 1 The decision for further matter proceedings DISCUSSION Defendants were violation of La R S provides 14 93 2 3 than forty right to by arrest a or speedy 2 motion to Defendants on suspended quash until are imprisoned at a l4 93 2 3 C hard labor for not the court or by formal bill of information whenever the defendant files rules on these matters In no a or an indictment preliminary plea instance however husband and wife Vanderhoffs motion filed of La R S juveniles trial attaches from the time the defendant becomes actual restraint The time limitation is 1 penalty provision to years accused or The whoever commits this crime shall be The more charged with second degree cruelty to quash was filed on March 7 2007 and Woodard March 9 2007 2 s motion to quash was will the State have less than La C CrP 580 State art v one year after the court suspends State the by a defendant is running a After erred in the record in the instant to for to appear however suspension relevant to September a our expired because of other review of the trial because continuances defendants that La C CrP The court filed filings by a motion art art to 580 that 578 See find that the trial court transcript of the hearing on an defendants interruption or that issue is a not ruling s for period 1st Cir 1983 to whether defendants failure given was we trial 808 So 2d 376 379 20053 trial date constituted 19 We find that the time case quash these motions reflects that much attention by 1st Cir 118 00 App defendants motions granting App under La C Cr P of time limitations established reviewing commence It has been determined that preliminary plea Marshall 99 2884 p 4 La v to ruling Booker 444 So 2d 238 240 La writ denied 446 So 2d 1227 La 1984 continue filed s commencing defendants trial has multiple preliminary pleas suspended the running of this not specifically period Kelly Vanderhoff The bill of information Under La C CrP art 578A 2 2002 commence on August 23 2004 defense counsel The September made landfall returned to according 19 2005 trial date was Defendants had relocated prior to to the granted was However 2004 was the State had until trial The record reflects that October 25 3 Vanderhoff charging the filed approximately twenty days the Twenty Second Judicial District with notice oftheir new trial date 3 on Florida to September 17 17 2004 to of this time period continuance of the trial plain language to Tallahassee September September expiration a on to of Article 580 the after Hurricane Katrina stay with relatives and 23 2005 in order to be served State had had until one year from the date of this August 23 2005 On November ruling 2004 the trial motion court granted a to continuance s until s trial until November 9 commence defendant defendant a quash trial had s not thereby giving trial continuance August 28 2007 motion to 2005 Finally on granted until the State January 24 2005 to defendant s defendant s to commence defendant another continuance the State until November 7 August 28 2006 the trial until October 9 to commence On May 9 2005 pursuant thereby giving the State until January 24 2006 court continuance a thereby giving motion defendant commence trial On November 7 2005 the trial to granted the trial court December 13 2004 pursuant to defense counsel until November 15 2005 trial Thus the State commence trial to commence 15 to 2006 court to granted thereby giving the State until 2006 trial Thus defendant Vanderhoffs March 7 2007 should have been denied because the time period for bringing her expired Sean Woodard The bill of information Under La C CrP commence trial On art charging 578A 2 giving the trial On December 13 2004 the trial commence 17 2004 was filed the State had until August 23 2004 defendant trial until October 25 2004 December Woodard was State until court granted on September September granted August a a 2004 to continuance of his 23 2005 defendant 17 17 2002 to commence continuance until thereby giving the State until December 13 2005 to defendant s trial On November 7 2005 the trial November 9 2005 court granted defendant a continuance until thereby giving the State until November 7 2006 4 to commence defendant s continuance 2007 to not commence 28 August 2006 the trial court period thereby giving the State until defendant s trial Thus Woodard s defendant August 28 March 9 2007 motion period for to to trial extending the time bringing him a expired because each defendant filed continuances in which the State could to granted 2006 until October 9 Accordingly prior On should have been denied because the time quash had trial the quashing filing commence of defendants motions trial the time to quash the bill of information is reversed and we The period had not expired ruling of the trial remand this matter court for further proceedings RULINGS ON MOTIONS TO FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS 5 QUASH REVERSED REMANDED
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
