State Of Louisiana VS Melvin Vernell, Jr.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT 2010 KA 0990 STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS MELVIN VERNELL JR Judgment Rendered December 22 2010 On Appeal from the 19th Judicial District Court In and For the Parish of East Baton Rouge Trial Court No 5 09 21 5 Honorable Michael R Erwin Judge Presiding Counsel for Appellant Hillar C Moore I11 District Attorney Charles Grey State of Louisiana Jaclyn C Chapman Assistant District Attorneys Baton Rouge LA James P Manasseh Counsel for Defendant Appellee Andre Belanger Baton Rouge LA Melvin Vernell Jr 14 Lewis O Unglesby Baton Rouge LA BEFORE PARRO GUIDRY AND HUGHES JJ r AAi2 11 HUGHES I The defendant Melvin Vernell Jr was charged by bill of information with attempted second degree murder count one illegal use of weapons or dangerous instrumentalities count two aggravated assault with a firearm counts three and four and possession of a firearm or carrying a concealed weapon by a convicted felon count nine violations of LSAR 14 S 27 LSA R S S 37 4 S 1 30 14 LSAR 14 LSAR 14 and LSA R S 94 1 95 14 The defendant entered a plea of not guilty and later filed a motion to quash The trial court granted the defendant motion to quash as to s counts one and two The State now appeals assigning error to the trial s court partial granting of the motion to quash For the following reasons we deny the defendant motion to strike reverse the ruling of the trial court s and remand for further proceedings STATEMENT OF FACTS The facts of the underlying offenses have not been fully established and are not pertinent to the issue in this appeal According to the bill of information on or about July 4 2005 the defendant attempted to murder Bruce Moore intentionally discharged a firearm in a place where it was foreseeable that it might have resulted in death or great bodily harm to a human being assaulted Bruce Moore and Demond Gaines with a dangerous weapon and possessed a firearm and carried a concealed weapon after or having been convicted of illegal use of a weapon The original bill of information instituting charges based on these facts was filed on September 16 2005 and charged the defendant with The bill of infonnation also contained several charges against codefendant Marcus D Roach Counts five through eight pertained exclusively to Roach The State has appealed as to the co defendant on the same basis as the instant case See State v Roach 201 00991 La App 1 Cir 10 15 12 3d So 2 attempted second degree murder and illegal use of weapons or dangerous instrumentalities On February 3 2006 the victims advised the district s attorney office that they did not want to pursue the charges and requested that the case be dismissed The victims executed affidavits stating that restitution had been made and that they would not testify against the defendants at trial 2006 The State dismissed the prosecution on September 18 On May 6 2009 the charges in the original bill were reinstituted in this case by a new bill of information as to counts one and two along with new charges as listed above based on the same set of facts The motion to quash was filed on November 10 2009 The motion hearing was held on January 27 2010 and the trial court took the matter under advisement On March 8 2010 the trial court granted the motion to quash as to counts one and two finding that the time limitation for the commencement of trial had expired as to those reinstituted charges MOTION TO STRIKE On appeal the defendant has filed a Motion to Strike Appellant s Statement of Facts in which he contends that certain statements of fact and procedural history recited in the State appellate brief should be s stricken on the grounds that 1 they are untrue and 2 they are based on highly inaccurate and self serving documents which were never admitted into evidence and never made part of the record and never will be In opposition to the motion the State contends that since this case is in the pre trial phase and the asserted facts have yet to be decided it is entitled to present a factual synopsis and that the police reports forming the basis of its synopsis are contained in the record Furthermore the State points out that the defendant in his appellate brief based his recitation of the facts on a video recording which is not contained in the record This court review of s 3 the record reveals that the statements made in the State appellate brief are s in accord with the warrant and police reports contained in the record presented on appeal while the video tape referenced in the defendant brief s as supporting his version of the facts is not contained in the record Nevertheless as we have stated hereinabove the facts of the underlying offenses are not pertinent to the issue before this court on appeal therefore we deny the defendant motion to strike portions of the State appellate s s brief ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR In the sole assignment of error the State relies on LSAC art P Cr 576 in arguing that the original charges were instituted timely The State notes that the charges herein were dismissed before any witness was sworn at trial The State contends that the charges were dismissed because the victims refused to testify or cooperate not to circumvent trial commencement delays In support of this contention the State notes that the victims indicated their refusal to testify by affidavit and the charges were dismissed one year before the twoyear time limitation for commencement of trial expired Finally the State contends that the twoyear time limitation contained in LSAC art 578 does not run from the filing of the original P Cr prosecution if that prosecution is properly dismissed and reinstituted The State concludes that the trial court erred in partially granting the defendant s motion to quash and that the ruling must be reversed A trial court ruling on a motion to quash should not generally be s reversed in the absence of a clear abuse of the trial court discretion See s State v Odom 20022698 pp 5 6 La App 1 Cir 6 861 So 03 27 2d 187 191 writ denied 2003 2142 La 10 855 So 765 However 03 17 2d a trial court legal findings are subject to a de novo standard of review See s 4 State v Smith 990606 992015 992019 992094 p 3 La 7 766 00 6 2d So 501 504 In this case the trial court ruling on the motion to quash is s based on a legal finding and is therefore subject to de novo review Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure Article 578 requires that 2 A trial of a non capital felony be commenced within two years from the date of institution of the prosecution Institution of prosecution includes the finding of an indictment or as in this case the filing of a bill of information which is designed to serve as the basis of a trial LSAC art 934 P Cr 7 State v Cotton 2001 1781 p 4 La App 1 Cir 5 818 So 968 02 10 2d 971 writ denied 2002 1476 La 12 831 So 982 02 13 2d Article 691 of the Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure confers on the district attorney the power to dismiss a formal charge in whole or in part and provides that leave of court is not needed Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure Article 693 expressly provides subject to narrowly delineated exceptions that dismissal of a prosecution is not a bar to a subsequent prosecution Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure Article 576 provides When a criminal prosecution is timely instituted in a court of proper jurisdiction and the prosecution is dismissed by the district attorney with the defendant consent or before the s first witness is sworn at the trial on the merits or the indictment is dismissed by a court for any error defect irregularity or deficiency a new prosecution for the same offense or for a lesser offense based on the same facts may be instituted within the time established by this Chapter or within six months from the date ofdismissal whichever is longer A new prosecution shall not be instituted under this article following a dismissal of the prosecution by the district attorney unless the state shows that the dismissal was not for the purpose of avoiding the time limitation for commencement of trial established by Article 578 Emphasis added z A motion to quash is the proper vehicle to assert that the time limitation for the institution of prosecution or commencement of trial has expired LSAC arts 531 and 532 Crk 7 l Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure Article 572 contained within the same chapter as Article 576 provides the time limitations for the institution of prosecution for non capital offenses as six years after the offense has been committed for a felony necessarily punishable by imprisonment at hard labor and four years for a felony not necessarily punishable by imprisonment at hard labor A court resolution of motions to quash in cases where the district s attorney entered a nolle prosequz and later reinstituted charges should be decided on a casebycase basis State v Love 20003347 p 14 La 03 23 5 847 So 1198 1209 In those cases where it is evident that the 2d district attorney is flaunting his authority for reasons that show that he wants to favor the State at the expense of the defendant such as putting the defendant at risk of losing witnesses the trial court should grant a motion to quash and an appellate court can appropriately reverse a ruling denying a motion to quash in such a situation Love 20003347 at p 14 847 So at 2d 1209 Herein the defendant motion to quash noted that more than two s years had elapsed since the date the original prosecution was instituted and that the charges were dismissed by the State without any evidence of the s defendant consent The motion to quash concluded that the reinstitution was untimely in violation of LSAC art 578 as trial was not P Cr commenced within two years of the filing of the original prosecution At the hearing on the motion to quash the State argued in part that the charges were properly reinstituted pursuant to LSAC art 576 In granting the P Cr motion to quash as to counts one and two the trial court concluded the State 3 The defendant does not argue that his speedy trial rights were asserted and violated C failed to bring the charges to trial within the twoyear time limitation and noted that there was no statutory reason for dismissing the charges The trial court specifically stated T reinstituted the charges some what I don hey t know three years later or whatever it was and there was nothing that gave them a new time to start if that makes any sense Based on the following analysis we disagree with the trial court The effect of a dismissal or nolle prosequi is to discharge the particular indictment bill of information or affidavit however it does not necessarily bar further prosecution if it was entered before the first witness was sworn State v Norwood 351 So 122 124 La 1977 2d See also LSA C P Cr arts 576 691 and 693 The second paragraph of Article 576 does not create a presumption that a prosecution has been dismissed in order to circumvent the time limitations for commencement of trial State v Hearin 409 So 2d 577 578 La 1982 Rather the second paragraph of Article 576 would preclude a new prosecution unless the State shows that the dismissal was not for the purpose of avoiding the time limitation for commencement of trial established by Article 578 In this case there is no evidence that the district attorney was avoiding the time limitation for commencement of trial or was flaunting his authority at the expense of the defendant Instead the record indicates a nolle prosequi was entered because the victims stated in their affidavits that pursuing the restitution had been made they were not interested in criminal charges they would not testify against the defendants at trial and they wished to dismiss or nolle prosequi the charges Further the charges were dismissed only twelve months after the institution of the original prosecution There is no need to show that the defendant consented to the dismissal since there was no commencement of trial or swearing in of a witness prior to the dismissal of the original 7 prosecution We find that the reinstitution of prosecution on the attempted second degree murder and illegal use of a weapon or dangerous instrumentality charges though made after six months from the original dismissal was timely under the limitations set forth in LSAC art 572 P Cr as the prosecution was reinstituted on May 6 2009 less than four years after the July 4 2005 commission of the offenses In non capital felony cases the State has two years from the reinstitution of prosecution to commence trial barring any interruption or 2d suspension of the time delay See Hearin 409 So at 578 79 where the s State reindictment was not for the purpose of avoiding the time limitation established by Article 578 the new prosecution was found timely though instituted after the time limitations for commencement of trial had elapsed but within the time limitations for a new prosecution provided by Article 576 State v Van Dyke 2003 437 pp 6 8 La App 3 Cir 10l 03 856 2d So 187 19293 writ denied 2003 2777 La 2 867 So 689 04 13 2d State v Barley 29 pp 2 4 La App 2 Cir 6 698 So 36 38 482 97 8 1 2d 39 As previously stated the effect of a dismissal or nolle prosequi is to discharge the particular indictment bill of information or affidavit The twoyear time limitation for commencement of trial cannot continue to run under a prosecution that no longer exists Rather this time period began to run anew with the filing of a new bill of information See Van Dyke 2003 437 at pp 78 856 So at 193 Thus the trial court erred in calculating 2d 4 Attempted second degree murder is necessarily punishable by hard labor and thus prosecution must be instituted within six years of the date of commission Illegal use of a weapon or dangerous instrumentality is punishable by imprisonment with or without hard labor requiring institution within four years of commission but necessarily punishable at hard labor if committed during the commission or attempted cot of a crime of violence or violation of the Uniform Controlled Dangerous Substances Law and requiring institution within six years of its commission LSAR 14 LSAR 14 LSAR 14 E or F S 27 a 1 D S 30 B S 94 B and LSAC art 572 and 2 P Cr 1 A 8 the time delay for commencement of trial from the date of the original discharged bill of information We find that the 2009 reinstitution of prosecution for the 2005 offenses was timely as it was not in violation of Article 572 and was not precluded by Article 576 As noted the charges were timely reinstituted on May 6 2009 and the motion to quash was filed on November 10 2009 Clearly the twoyear time limitation for the commencement of the s defendant trial had not lapsed The trial court erred in partially granting the motion to quash on this basis Thus we reverse the trial court order s quashing the reinstituted charges in counts one and two and the case is remanded for further proceedings TO MOTION TO STRIKE DENIED RULING ON THE MOTION REMANDED FOR FURTHER REVERSED QUASH PROCEEDINGS E
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.
