3rd Circuit agrees conditionally with Catalon case dismissal

The Third Circuit Court conditionally agrees with a St. Landry judge’s decision to toss charges against an alleged kidnapper because the case was not prosecuted in a timely manner but has ordered a hearing to support its finding.
Interim Judge Marion Edwards ruled in July that Calvin Catalon’s case languished too long on the docket, telling District Attorney Earl Taylor’s Office that the two-year clock it had to prosecute had run its course.
The prosecutor disagreed, saying the case dragged on because of a number of continuances granted at the defense’s request since Catalon’s arrest in 2009. Taylor’s office appealed to the Third Circuit.
Catalon was charged with aggravated kidnapping, aggravated burglary and unauthorized use of a vehicle. His 2009 arrest stemmed from a 2005 case. The arrest came after DNA tied him to the crime.
Judge Marion Edwards, appointed to fill the chair vacated by Ellis Daigle when Daigle resigned to run for DA, expressed reservations in dismissing the charges but said he had no choice but to grant defense attorney Pride Doran’s prescription motion.
“The State contends the trial court abused its discretion in finding no suspension occurred because of the State’s delay in securing Defendant’s presence in court. Although we find some of the trial court’s observations to be erroneous, we do not find the court abused its discretion. Instead, a review of the record indicates an evidentiary hearing is necessary to determine whether the prescriptive period has been effectively suspended.
“While the trial court based its finding that no suspension occurred on assumptions not supported by the record, its granting of Defendant’s Motion to Quash was not an abuse of discretion. The State did not definitively show the prescriptive period to be ongoing. It is for this reason that we conditionally affirm. However, because the defense potentially authorized a motion which would effectively suspend the prescriptive period to March 2015, we also remand for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether that occurred,” the appeal court ruled.
“Our review of the pertinent motions and dates reveals the outcome of the evidentiary hearing will determine whether the time to commence trial has elapsed,” the judges wrote.
“We conditionally affirm the grant of Defendant’s Motion to Quash. We remand the case to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing on the issue of whether the defense authorized the continuance made by the State on February 22, 2013. If the trial court finds the defense authorized the continuance, the time to commence trial has yet to expire. As such, the trial court will deny the Motion to Quash, reinstate the charges against Defendant, and proceed accordingly. Defendant will have the right to seek review of the trial court’s ruling.
“Alternatively, if the trial court finds the defense did not authorize the continuance, the time to commence trial has expired, and the trial court will uphold its prior grant of the Motion to Quash. The State will then have the right to appeal the trial court’s ruling. In the absence of such an appeal by the State, this court affirms the trial court’s grant of Defendant’s Motion to Quash.”
Judge Gerard Caswell of Eunice now holds the seat formerly held by Daigle and temporarily filled by Edwards.