Calendar catches criminal case

There is quite a bit of irony in the ruling by an interim 27th Judicial District judge throwing out charges against an accused kidnapper because, the judge ruled, the DA’s Office took too long to make its case.
The judge is Marion Davies, who sits in the Division B seat held by Ellis Daigle of Eunice until Daigle retired in February.
The case rested in the docket file of Daigle’s court for years.
Daigle retired to run for district attorney against incumbent Earl Taylor.
Among Daigle’s campaign themes has been one accusing Taylor’s office of dragging its feet in trial work.
Prosecutors counter that trials are often not the most efficient way of handling cases, that resolution without trial can sometimes save time and money with a equally just result.
Some background in the case in question:
Calvin J. Catalon, Jr., 35, of Arnaudville was arrested in 2009 for aggravated kidnapping, aggravated burglary and unauthorized use of a motor vehicle.
His arrest stemmed from a 2005 incident that four year later led to Catalon when DNA evidence nailed him.
Catalon allegedly broke into a couple’s South St. Landry home in 2005, bound one and drove the other to a bank in Carencro, in Lafayette Parish, where she worked.
Catalon allegedly tried to get the victim to break into the bank’s vault, but when she was unsuccessful, he also allegedly tied her up and left her at the bank.
From there began a sequence of events, and non-events, that lead Edwards this month “despite grave reservations in dismissing charges of such a violent nature, for which the victims of these alleged crimes many never obtain justice or peace” to throw out the indictment.
Catalon’s new attorney, Pride Doran, claimed in his March 2014 petition that Taylor’s office dawdled, failing to meet speedy trial requirements of the state and federal constitutions as well as prescription rules under the state’s Code of Criminal Procedure.
Article 578 of that code requires felony trial within two years of indictment, allowing for suspending that clock under certain circumstances and conditions.
The state argued such had occurred in several instances when continuance was requested by the defense and granted by the court.
In his 22-page ruling, Edwards disagrees, noting the defendant was not in St. Landry’s court at all between June 1, 2010 and Oct. 1, 2013.
Catalon was in prison in Texas serving a five-year sentence from June 2011 until Sept. 2013, when he was paroled, and returned to Louisiana to face Lafayette Parish’s detainer for the alleged armed robbery.
He was in St. Landry court on Oct. 1, 2013, when his attorney asked for a continuance, saying the defense did not yet have all materials requested through motions for discovery.
From the prosecution perspective, it seems evident that trial did not go forward because the accused was in prison in Texas.
Edwards said the two-year clock began to run anew once the state learned on Feb. 1, 2011 where Catalon was.
“It continued to run and eventually expired with the St. Landry Parish District Attorney’s Office taking no action, other than a last-minute and improper attempt, to bring him before this court for trial,” Edwards found.
Taylor’s first assistant and case manager Frank Trosclair indicated immediately after the ruling that the state will appeal to the Third Circuit, noting the number of continuances granted at the defense’s request over the years.
Edwards found that in none of the instances of continuance did it appear the state was ready for trial.
“A prosecutor cannot try a defendant if he is not physically present in court; certainly not while he is incarcerated in Texas.
“The evidence and argument offered by the state in this case did not prove any motion or plea filed by the defense affected its ability to prosecute; in contrast, it proved the opposite by demonstrating its own inaction as the sole cause of delay,” the judge ruled.
Then Edwards pens a thought that could have far-reaching affect in the parish criminal courtrooms:
Writing about testimony regarding how a continuance came about, Edwards said,
“Regardless of either side’s recollection, the fact remains that on the date the defendant failed to appear, no steps were taken by the State at that time to exercise due diligence in discovering the whereabouts of the defendant.
“By choosing to avail itself of ‘customary practice’, which by itself may be practical and efficient, the state is unable to offer any evidence that would satisfy the burden of due diligence.
“No matter how common the practice, in this particular case, because neither prosecutor nor defense attorney followed the statutory rules of criminal procedure, the state lost the ability to prove its due diligence.”
Continuances heretofore have been asked for, objected to and granted in a similar fashion as in this case as a matter of routine in the district.
Does that practice jeopardize other pending criminal matters? Time will tell.
Edwards continues:
“While the record certainly reflects several motions to continue filed by the defense, ‘over the state’s objection’, each motion was instantly granted by the court.
“Thus, no suspension occurred as the court ruled on the motions immediately. More importantly any motion to continue which occurred during the defendant’s incarceration is not a delay attributable to the defense.
“Any defense attorney would be forced to continue the case, again and again, because the sole power to proceed to trial lies with the state: Only the prosecutor possesses the ability to secure the presence of an incarcerated defendant held outside of Louisiana.”
The hearing on which Edwards based his ruling was held on May 12.
On May 27, Catalon pleaded guilty in federal court in Lafayette to possession of cocaine with intent to distribute.
He faces a maximum of 40 years in prison, four years of supervised probation, and a $5 million fine when sentenced on Aug. 28.
He was arrested on Jan. 17 of this year on I-10 by a Lake Charles police officer who found 35 ounces of cocaine in Catalon’s vehicle.
At the time he was a probation and parole fugitive from Texas.