State Of Louisiana VS Melvin Trosclair
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICAT[ ON STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT 2013 KA 0650 S7 ATE OF LOUISI NA VERSUS MELVIN L. TROSCLAIR i Jud ment Rendered: DEC 2 7 2013 x ,; APPEALED PROM i,HE NINETEFNTH .1UD[ CIAL DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR. 'I' HE PARISH OF EAST BATON ROUGE STATE OF LOUISIANA CtOCKET NUMBER OS- 12- 0059 HONORAI LE R[ CHARD D. ANDERSON, IUDCE x * * Hillar C. Moore, [ lt Attorneys for Appellee District State of Louisiana Attorney And Allison Miller Rutzen Assislant Dish ict Attornev Baton Kouge, Louisiana Frederick Kroenke Attorney for Defendant/Appellant Baton Rouge, Louisiana Melvin L. Trosclair BEFORE: PETTICYREW, McDONALD, AND McCLENDON, JJ. McDONALD, J. The defendant, Melvin L. Trosclair, was charged by bill of information with possession of a schedule li controlled dangerous substance ( cocaine) with intent to distribute, a defendant violation pled not Louisiana Revised Statutes of guih r. section 40: 967A( 1). The Followi lg a jury t1-ial, he was found guilty of the responsive offense of po session of a schedule II controlled dangerous substance cocaine), a violation l.ouisiana Revised Statutes of section 40: 967C. He was sentenced to five years at hard labor. The defendant now appeals, at-guing that the district court erred in denying his motion to continue. For the following reasons, we affirm the defendant' s canviction and sentence. FACTS On January 17, 2012, around 3: 15 p. m., three officers with the Baton Rouge Police Department came into contact with the defendant while making routine checks at convenience stores near the 3000 block of North Street. The officers were driving separate units, As they pulled into the parking lot of one convenience store, they heard loud nusic coming from the defendant' s vehicle which was parked near the front of the store with its windows rolled down. As Officer Scott IIodgins a proached the eehicle, he smelled the odor of marijuana. Corporal Jonathan Medine approached the driver' s side of the vehicle and asked the defendant to step out. ' Tter the defendant was read his Miranda rights, the officers asked him if he had marijuana. The defendant initially said no, but then told them that it was in his right front pockEt. Corporal Medine reached into the defendant' s pocket handcuffed, and and pulled out a bag Coiporal Medine began to of marijuana. pat him do n. The defendant was As he touched the defendant' s front left pc,cket, the defendant jumped and tried to pull away. Corporal Medine reacheci into the pocket and pulled out a large rock of crack cocaine. It was unwrappe and approximately the size oCa dime. The officers also located cash in the amou:Yt of $2, 747. 00 in one of the defendant' s front pockets. Sergeant cocaine Wiedem_ an Randy and defendant asked the defendant, " The defendant stuff?" immediately ot: e.red to set responded, " up a drug What' s going on with this You know what I do." The deal to `°help himsel£'° The officers worked with the defendant in an attempt to set up a deal, but were unsuccessful. The evidence collected at the scene was later tested and determined to be .79 grams of cocaine and 1 . 4 grams of marijuana. At trial, the defend3nt' s long- term girlfriend testified that $ 2, 500. 00 of the found cash on the defendant was from her income tax return. However, no documentation was submi tted in support of her tesrimony. DISCUSSION In his sole assignirent of error, the defendant argues that the district court en ¢ed in failing to grant a ontinuance of his trial to allow his counsel more time to prepare. On Thursday, October 4, 2012, the day after a jury was selected, defense counsel tiled a motion to e; antinue. Iie claimed that as of Monday of that week, he had not received any discovery and had no time to " meaningfully prepare." He argued that his office was fi cusing its attention on a " priority case" that had setfled on Tuesday. According Io defense counsel, he did not discover until Wednesday while reviewing the poliLe reports that the in- car cameras in each of the three police units involved in this arrest were not working. Defense counsel also claimed that it was not until Wednesday that he learned the arrest occurred at a convenience store rather than during a traffic stop and, thus, there was a possibility that a surveillance videotape existed that would help dispute the officers' version of events. The State respondecf by pointing out that a preliminary examination was held on May 30, 2012, and that the lead officer, Hodgins, testified therein as to the basic 3 facts of the case and was subject to cross- examination. In response to one of defense counsel' s questicns on cross- examination, Officer Hodgins testified that the video and audio recording equipment in his and Sergeant Wiedeman' s units were not working on the ay of the arrest. The State also pointed out that it gave the defendant an opportuility to accept a plea agreement at the preliminary examination hearing and xplained to him that if he did not take the deal, the case would proceed to h-ial. i'he district court tlr nied the motion to continue and pointed out that the case was set for trial four months prioi- and originally came up for trial in August 2012. It was then continued to Gctober and rolled ovei ¢ from Monday, October 1, 2012, to the following day, and then from October 2 to October 3. According to the court, that should have been a " clear indication" that ` this thing is on the trial track." While the attorneys and the disb-ict court were discussing preliminary natters, it was revealed that part of the reason the officers did not put the defendant in the backseat of their unit and question him was because they had an agreement for him to oruer some drugs and have them delivered so they could arrest the seller. After thi5 was revealed, defense counsel reurged his motion to conrinae, arguing that he ,7eeded to look into this new information that the officers were trying to get the dEf ndant to make a buy as opposed to anything indicating that the defendant was actually selling drugs. The district court denied the motion and stated that the new i: forn ation was something his client was aware of and could have told him. A motion for contirivance, if timely filed, may be granted, in the discrerion of the court, in any case if there is good ground therefar. La. C. Cr.P. art. 712. A motion for continuance st.all be in writing and filed at least seven days prior to the commencement of trial. Upon written motion at any time, the district court may granl a motion for continuance after a contradictory hearing, but only upon a 4 showing that such moriors is in the interest of justice. La. C.Cr.P. art. 707. The district court has great : iscretion in deciding whether to grant a motion for continuance, and this decision will not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of an abuse of that discretion. State v. Castleberry, 98- 1388 ( La. 4/ 13/ 99), 758 So. 2d 749, 755, cert. denied, 523 U.S. 893, 120 S. Ct 220, 145 L.Ed. 2d l85 ( 1999). The denial of a motion for ecntinuance, when the motion is based on the ground of counsel' s lack of preparedness, does not warrant reversal unless counsel demonstrates specific pre udice resulting fi-om the denial or unless the preparation tiiTte is so minimaL as to c,il into quesrion the basic fairness of the proceeding. See State v. Dupre, 408 So. 2d 1229, 1231- 32 ( La. 1982). Based on the foregoing, we find no abuse of discretion in the district court' s denial of defense counsel' s motion to continue. Moreover, the defendant has made no showing of specific pi ejudice because of the district court' s failure to continue his trial in order fot hr irr to information that he was obtain surveillance videos and " look into" the arking with officers to set up a dealer rather than selling the drugs himsel£ This is particularly true since he was found guilty of possession of cocaine rather than ossession with the intent to dish ¢ ibute the cocaine. Accordingly, this assignment of eiror is without merit. CONVICTION Ar TD SENTENCE AFFIRMF,D. 5
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.
