Luis Gonzalez VS State of Louisiana
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT 2012 CA 1721 LUIS GONZALES VERSUS STATE OF LOUISIANA J DATE OFJUDGMENT qpR 2 6 20f3 ON APPEAL FROM TI NINETEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT lE NiJMBER 605 SEC 25 PARISH OF EAST BATON ROUGE 157 STATE OF LOUISIANA HONORABLE WILSON FIELDS 7UDGE Luis Gonzales Pro se Jonesboro Louisiana Patricia H Wilton Counsel for Defendant Appellee Baton Louisiana Parole Board Rouge Louisiana BEFORE KUHN PETTIGREW AND McDONALD 7J Disposition AFFIRMED KUHN J appellant Petitioner Luis Gonzales appeals the district court judgment s affirming the decision of the Board of Parole the Board and dismissing his petition for appeal of a parole revocation For the reasons that follow we affirm FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Petitioner was granted parole in 2007 on a thirty sentence for a year violation of the controlled dangerous substance law The Board ordered his supervision overseen in the Donaldsonville Louisiana disri of the Division of Probation and Parole In March 2008 petitioner admits that he relocated to the Thibodeaux district but never reported the change ofresidence to the Board After moving from his assigned residence without permission from his parole officer a warrant for his having absconded was issued In January 2010 petitioner was arrested in St Bernard Parish on two charges possession of cocaine a schedule II controlled dangerous substance and illegal possession of stolen things a vehicle He requested that Yhe revocation preliminary hearing and final revocation hearing be deferred until a final disposition of the pending charges The eharges were eventually dismissed in March 2011 A preliminary revocation hearing was held on April 29 2011 in St Bernard Parish where petitioner was incarcerated At the hearing petitioner was charged with violating seven conditions of parole A hearing was held before a preliminary hearing officer wherein he was found guilty of having violated five of the seven charges At the final revocation hearing the Board voted unanimously to 2 revoke petitioner parole expressly declining to grant petitioner first s time violator technical status Petitioner sought judicial review in the Nineteenth Judicial District Court Adopting the recommendation of the commissioner the district court affirmed the s Board decision and dismissed petitioner pleading This appeal followed s DISCUSSION On appeal both before the district court and this court the gist of scontention is that his guilry pleas to violations of five of seven parole petitioner conditions do not support the Board decision to deny him relief to first s time violator technical status Initially we note that petitioner was given notice of the charges and his right to counsel He was given a preliminary hearing and a parole hearing Nothing in the recard supports a finding that any of petitioner sconstitutional or other substantial rights had been violated by the revocation process Thus he has shown no procedural due process violation See La R 15 prior to S 574 11A amendment of La R 15 by La Acts 2012 No 714 1 no prisoner ar S 574 2 parolee shall have a right of appeal from a decision of the B regarding the oard revocation or reconsideration of revocation of parole except for the denial of a revocation hearing under R 15 S 574 9 Nevertheless the district court has appellate jurisdiction over pleadings alleging a violation of R 15 S 574 9 The review is conducted by the court without a jury and confined to the revocation record And the review is limited to Effective August 1 2012 the Board of Pardons functioning as the committee on parole became the successor to and assumed control of the affairs of the Board of Parole See La Acts 2012 No 714 4 3 the issues presented in the petition for review The court may affirm the revocation decision of the Board or reverse and remand the case for further revocation proceedings An aggrieved party may appeal a final judgment of the district court to the appropriate court of appeal See La R 15 prior to S 574 11C amendment of La R 15 by La Acts 2012 No 714 1 Bertrand v S 574 2 Louisiana Parole BaG 2006 La App lst Cir 3 960 So 979 0871 07 28 2d 81 980 The pertinent provisions of La R 15 priar to amendment of La S 574 9G S 574 R 15 by La Acts 2012 No 714 1 state 2 a 1 Except as provided as stated herein any offender who has been released on parole and whose parole supervision is being revoked under the provisions of this Subsection for his first technical violation of the conditions of parole as determined by the Board of Parole shall be required to serve not more than ninety days without diminution of sentence or credit for time served prior to the revocation for a technical violation The term of the revocation far the technical violation shall begin on the date the Board of Parole orders the revocation Upon completion of the imposed technical revocation sentence the offender shall return to active parole supervision for the remainder of the ariginal term of supervision The provisions of this Subsection shall apply only to an offender first s revocation for a technical violation 2 A violation as used in this Subsection means technical any violation except it shall not include any ofthe following b Being arrested charged or convicted of any of the following iA felony d Absconding from the jurisdiction of the Board of Parole Urging that he was improperly denied first violator technical offender status petitioner asks this court to order an application of the provisions of La S 574 R 15 to allow him to return to supervised parole after serving a a 1 9G 4 maximum sentence of ninety days without diminution of sentence or credit for time served prior to the revocation for a technical violation He relies heavily on the preliminary hearing officer finding that there was no probable cause he had s absconded out of state to Miami as his probation officer had reported to the Board Although the preliminary hearing officer indicated there was no probable cause that petitioner was out of state he also concluded there was probable cause that petitioner did in fact abscond from supervision and that i was t s petitioner own testimony that he absconded Petitioner does not challenge the accuracy of the commissioner sfindings in the written recommendation adopted by the district court that petitioner informed the Board that he did not like the place he was living and thought it dangerous and that after a visit from friendly police he decided to move without permission ar notification to his officer And it is undisputed that petitioner was at large for approximately 2 years without personal contact with his officer until he was finally arrested in 2010 According to La R 15 prior to its amendment by La Acts 2012 S 574 2 No 714 1 the Board powers and duties included determination of the time s and conditions of release on parole of any person who has been convicted of a felony and sentenced to imprisonment and confined in any penal or correctional institution in this state Thus when petitioner absconded from the supervision of his parole he absconded from the jurisdiction of the Board While it is axiomatic that the Board geographic jurisdictional limits are necessarily within s the State of Louisiana we recognize that jurisdiction is also power and legal authority bestowed upon the Board by the legislature See 853 B Law s ncK 5 oNnRV cT D Sixth ed defining jurisdiction as among other things a 1990 term of comprehensive import embracing every kind ofjudicial action see e La C art 1 is the legal power and authority of a court to hear P jurisdiction and determine an action or proceeding involving the legal relations of the parties and to grant relief to which they are entitled As such we find no error in the s Board conclusion that petitioner absconding from the supervision for nearly s two years was sufficient under La R 15 to deny him first S 574 d 2 11G time violator technical status Moreover we believe the record supports denial of first technical time violatar status to petitioner on an additional basis The record shows petitioner was arrested on January 28 2010 felony charges on See La R 40 S 967C making it unlawful for any person to knowingly and intentionally possess a Schedule II substance and subjecting them to imprisonment with or without hard labor La R 14 subjecting an offender to imprisonment with or without S 69 hard labor for the intentional possessing procuring receiving or concealing of anything of value which has been the subject of a robbery ar theft when the offender knew or had good reason to believe that the thing was stolen and La S 2A R 14 defining a felony as any crime for which the offender may be 4 sentenced to imprisonment at hard labor The Board could correctly take notice of the arrest on two felony charges even though no witnesses were present who could say what happened on the day petitioner was anested and the charges were all dismissed as the preliminary hearing officer noted in his recommendation to the Board Thus having been anested on two felony charges 6 petirioner cannot complain that the Board denied him first violator technical time status under La R 15 S 574 i b 2 11G DECREE For these reasons the district court correctly dismissed petitioner appeal s Appeal costs are assessed against petitioner Luis Gonzales appellant AFFIRMED 7
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.
