State of Louisiana Versus Landon Perrilloux

STATE OF LOUISIANA NO. 23-K-181
VERSUS FIFTH CIRCUIT
LANDON PERRILLOUX COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF LOUISIANA
April 10, 2023 **CONFIDENTIAL**
LSA-RS 46:1844(W)
Susan Buchholz ATTORNEYS OF RECORD
Chief Deputy Clerk ONLY
IN RE STATE OF LOUISIANA
APPLYING FOR SUPERVISORY WRIT FROM THE TWENTY-FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT,
PARISH OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF LOUISIANA, DIRECTED TO THE HONORABLE
DONALD L. FORET, DIVISION "H", NUMBER 20-4018
Panel composed of Judges Jude G. Gravois,
Robert A. Chaisson, and Stephen J. Windhorst
WRIT GRANTED WITH INSTRUCTIONS; RULING REVERSED;
MOTION FOR STAY DENIED AS MOOT
In this emergency writ application, the State of Louisiana, joined by
defendant, Landon Perrilloux, seek this Court’s supervisory review of the trial
court’s ruling which denied their joint motion to continue the trial, which is
currently in progress. Relators also seek a stay of the trial pending this Court’s
resolution of the writ application.
On July 6, 2022, defendant was charged by bill of information with third
degree rape in violation of La. R.S. 14:43. Defendant pleaded not guilty at his
arraignment. Trial was set to begin today, April 10, 2023. This morning, the
parties orally moved for a joint continuance of the trial to facilitate further potential
plea discussions. According to the transcript of today’s hearing on the motion to
continue the trial, defense counsel noted that the parties were close to resolving the
matter. The State concurred, noting that more time was needed to negotiate a plea
23-K-181
agreement between the parties because of the nature of the charge. The parties
stated that both the victim and defendant were in agreement to continue the trial
and wished to resolve the matter without having to proceed to trial. The trial court
denied the joint motion and gave the parties approximately one hour, or until 10:30
a.m. today, to either resolve the matter or the matter would proceed to trial.
In this writ application, the parties argue that, considering the circumstances
presented, the trial court abused its discretion in denying their joint motion to
continue the trial because the case is less than one year old, this is the first trial
setting, and the victim wishes to resolve the case without trial if possible.
Upon review, under the circumstances presented, we find that the trial court
abused its discretion in denying the joint motion to continue the trial. See State v.
Briscoe, 22-430 (La. App. 5 Cir. 9/16/22) (unpublished writ disposition); State v.
Brooks, 23-113 (La. App. 5 Cir. 3/6/23) (unpublished writ disposition); State v.
Barnes, 11-1186 (La. App. 4 Cir. 8/29/11), 72 So.3d 939. See also State v.
Watson, 22-00719 (La. 5/1/22), 338 So.3d 1169. Accordingly, we grant the writ
application and reverse the trial court’s ruling which denied the joint motion to
continue the trial set for today, April 10, 2023, and direct the trial court to continue
the trial to a reasonable date in the future convenient to the court and the parties.
Because of our decision, the request for a stay is denied as moot.
Gretna, Louisiana, this 10th day of April, 2023.
JGG
RAC
2
STATE OF LOUISIANA NO. 23-K-181
VERSUS FIFTH CIRCUIT
LANDON PERRILLOUX COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF LOUISIANA
WINDHORST, J., CONCURS WITH REASONS
I agree with the result in this writ because of the facts and grounds presented
in the transcript of the joint motion for continuance and the relatively brief
procedural history of the case. I concur to point out that I maintain the position taken
in my dissent in State v. Darwin Bethune, 18-147 (La. App. 5 Cir. 3/26/18) to the
effect that a joint motion to continue by the defendant and the State is not a per se
ground for a continuance which denies the trial court any discretion. I therefore
remain in respectful disagreement with State v. Barnes, 11-1186 (La. App. 4 Cir.
8/29/11), 72 So.3d 939, which is among the authorities cited by the majority. See
also La. C.Cr.P. art. 17.
The majority writ also cites State v. Watson, 22-00719 (La. 5/1/22), 338 So.3d
1169. Although on its face the case does not seem to hold that a joint motion by
defense and State is a per se ground for continuance, I strongly agree with the dissent
by Justice Crain.
SJW
23-K-181
SUSAN M. CHEHARDY CURTIS B. PURSELL
CHIEF JUDGE CLERK OF COURT
SUSAN S. BUCHHOLZ
FREDERICKA H. WICKER
CHIEF DEPUTY CLERK
JUDE G. GRAVOIS
MARC E. JOHNSON
ROBERT A. CHAISSON LINDA M. WISEMAN
STEPHEN J. WINDHORST
FIRST DEPUTY CLERK
JOHN J. MOLAISON, JR.
CORNELIUS E. REGAN, PRO TEM FIFTH CIRCUIT
MELISSA C. LEDET
JUDGES 101 DERBIGNY STREET (70053)
DIRECTOR OF CENTRAL STAFF
POST OFFICE BOX 489
GRETNA, LOUISIANA 70054 (504) 376-1400
(504) 376-1498 FAX
www.fifthcircuit.org
NOTICE OF DISPOSITION CERTIFICATE OF DELIVERY
I CERTIFY THAT A COPY OF THE DISPOSITION IN THE FOREGOING MATTER HAS BEEN
TRANSMITTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH UNIFORM RULES - COURT OF APPEAL, RULE 4-6 THIS
DAY 04/10/2023 TO THE TRIAL JUDGE, THE TRIAL COURT CLERK OF COURT, AND AT LEAST ONE OF
THE COUNSEL OF RECORD FOR EACH PARTY, AND TO EACH PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY
COUNSEL, AS LISTED BELOW:
23-K-181
E-NOTIFIED
24th Judicial District Court (Clerk)
Honorable Donald L. Foret (DISTRICT JUDGE)
Thomas J. Butler (Relator) John T. Fuller (Respondent)
Darren A. Allemand (Relator)
MAILED
Honorable Paul D. Connick, Jr. (Relator)
District Attorney
Twenty-Fourth Judicial District
200 Derbigny Street
Gretna, LA 70053