State Of Louisiana VS Jacob Maurice Crawford
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCITIT I NO 2012 KA 1671 STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS JACOB MAURICE CRAWFORD Judgment Rendered MAY 0 6 2013 On Appeal from the 22nd Judicial District Court In and for the Parish of St Tammany State of Louisiana Trial Court No 421 223 The Honorable William J Crain Judge Presiding Walter P Reed Attomeys for Appellee District State of Louisiana Attorney Covington Louisiana Kathryn W Landry Special Appeals Counsel Baton Rouge Louisiana Gwendolyn K Brown Louisiana Appellate Project Attorney for Appellant Jacob Maurice Crawfard Baton Rouge Louisiana BEFORE PARRO WELCH AND KLINE JJ Judge William F Kline Jr retired serving ad hoc by special appointment ofthe Louisiana Supreme Court KLINE J The defendant Jacob Maurice Crawfard was charged by bill of information with possession of cocaine a violation of La R 40 He pled not guilty S 967 C and following a jury trial was found guilty as charged The State filed a habitual offender bill of information At the habitual offender hearing the defendant after admitting to the allegations in the habitual offender bill was adjudicated a second felony habitual offender and sentenced to eight years of imprisonment at hard labor The defendant appealed and in an unpublished decision this court affirmed the defendant conviction However because we found the trial court failed to s advise the defendant of his right to remain silent at the habitual offender hearing we vacated the habitual offender adjudication and sentence and remanded the matter for further proceedings See State v Crawford 2010 La App 1 0509 Cir 946 So 3d 285 2010 WL 3527532 unpublished 10 10 Subsequently the defendant was arraigned again on his habitual offender bill At the arraignment the trial court informed the defendant that he had a right to a hearing to be tried as to the truth of the allegations in the bill and that he had the right to remain silent The defendant denied the allegations A few months later a second habitual offender hearing was conducted At the hearing defense counsel objected to a hearing being conducted on the grounds that the State had gone beyond a reasonable amount of time to refile a habitual offender bill The objection was overruled The defendant was again adjudicated a second felony habitual offender and sentenced to eight years of imprisonment at hard labor The defendant now appeals his adjudication as a second habitual offender We felony affirm the habitual offender adjudication and sentence 2 FACTS On October 11 2006 agents from the Aggressive Criminal Enforcement unit of the St Tammany Parish Sheriffs Office entered a FEMA trailer in Slidell Louisiana The defendant was inside the trailer and consented to a search of the premises One of the agents found a rock of crack cocaine under the table where the defendant had been seated ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR In his sole assignment of error the defendant argues the trial court erred in adjudicating him a second habitual offender Specifically the defendant felony contends the trial court erred in overruling defense counsel objection to the State s s delay in instituting habitual offender proceedings LAW AND ANALYSIS Originally the defendant was convicted adjudicated a second felony habitual offender and sentenced all on the same day September 17 2009 This s court decision to vacate and remand was handed down on September 10 2010 Almost thirteen months later on October 5 2011 the defendant was arraigned again on his habitual offender bill and informed of his right to remain silent Three and one months later on January 20 2012 the new habitual offender hearing half was held and the defendant was adjudicated a second habitual offender felony Thus the total time from when this court handed down its decision remanding the matter to the trial court until the defendant was adjudicated again was about sixteen months Accordingly while the habitual offender hearing on January 20 2012 did not take place until about sixteen months after we handed down our decision the defendant was on notice as early as September 17 2009 that the State had filed a 246 For a3dfull recitation of 3527532 unpublishedCrawford 2010 La App 1 Cir 9 the facts see State v 0509 10 10 So 285 2010 WL 3 habitual offender bill of infortnation against him We note that the situation here is not one where a habitual offender bill was filed for the first time long after the defendant had been convicted and sentenced As such defense counsel was incorrect at the January 20 2012 hearing when he argued that the State should not be allowed to refile the habitual offender bill because of the time that had passed No new bill was or needed to be filed The only habitual offender bill filed was the one filed the same day the defendant was convicted and that had placed him on notice that the State would be pursuing sentencing enhancement Mareover our decision in which we remanded the case so the State could have a rehearing on the allegations of the habitual offender bill prolonged the entire process As the prosecutor pointed out at the January 20 2012 hearing Look this is not refiled This has always been in the record I trefile anything This has been in the record didn x Your Honor I would point out that this whole time that it was on appeal it was the appellate court that said he wasn properly t advised of his rights on on tbe multiple bill and that the reason for s this hearing today The State had nothing to do nor did the Court have anything to do with the delay in time that passed on a multiple bill hearing The district attorney may file a habitual offender bill of information at any time either after conviction or sentence See La R 15 The S 529 a D 1 supreme court in State v Muhammad 2003 La 5 875 Sa 2d 45 2991 04 25 56 held that there is no bright deadline by which the habitual offender line proceeding must be completed Instead since La R 15 does not S 529 a D 1 prescribe a time within which the bill must be filed the district attorney must file the habitual offender bill within a reasonable time See Muhammad 875 So 2d at 54 The determination of whether the hearing is held within a reasonable time hinges on the facts and circumstances of the specific case Muhammad 875 So 2dat55 4 As a general matter the United States Supreme Court has set forth four factors for courts to consider in determining whether a defendant right to a speedy s trial has been violated Those factors are the length of the delay the reasons for the delay the accused assertion of his right to speedy trial and the prejudice to the s accused resulting from the delay Barker v Wingo 407 U 514 530 92 S 33 Ct S 2182 2192 33 L 101 1972 93 2d Ed While these factors are neither definitive nor dispositive in the context of a habitual offender proceeding they are instructive See Muhammad 875 So at 55 See also State v Reaves 376 2d 2d So 136 La 1979 It is not clear from the record why there was an almost thirteen delay month between the rendering of this court decision in September of 2010 and the s sarraignment on October 5 2011 on his habitual offender bill during defendant which he was informed of his right to remain silent In any event we do not find the State filing of the habitual offender bill on the day the defendant was s convicted to be unreasonable nor do we find it unreasonable that the defendant was readjudicated a second habitual offender and resentenced about sixteen felony months after our Crawford decision was handed down See State v Torres 260 2005 La App 5 Cir 11 919 So 2d 730 733 writ denied 2006 OS 29 34 0697 La 10 938 So 2d 65 where despite the fact that the defendant 06 6 s habitual offender sentencing had occurred more than nine years after his convictions and after his original five sentence was completed the habitual year offender sentence was affirmed See also State v Dauzart 2007 La App 5 15 Cir 5 960 So 2d 1079 1083 07 15 86 There was no prejudice to the defendant resulting from any delay On the day he was convicted of possession of cocaine the defendant was made aware that the State would be filing a habitual offender bill of information Further there is nothing in the record before us that indicates any abusive or vindictive behavior by 5 the State Thus despite the delay in being adjudicated a habitual offender for a second time and being sentenced accordingly the defendant due process rights s were not violated See Muhammad 875 So 2d at 54 56 SENTENCE AND HABITUAL AFFIRMED 6 OFFENDER ADJUDICATION
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.
