Case ID: so2d_410/html/1037-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "DIXON, Chief Justice DENNIS, Justice", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

STATE of Louisiana v. Lionel BUCHANAN.
    No. 82-K-0266.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 19, 1982.
   Re: Lionel Buchanan, applying for writ of Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus, Parish of Orleans, Number 286-398 “B”.

Denied.

DIXON, Chief Justice

concurs in the denial, assuming that the trial judge did not “refuse to accept the Motions to Suppress”, and that they were actually filed. C.Cr.P. provides that an evidentiary hearing on a motion to suppress shall be held only when the defendant alleges facts that could require the granting of relief.

DENNIS, Justice

dissents from the order denying the application. The application is ambiguous. However, if the district court refused to allow the filing of the motion it was in error. There is no requirement that the motion be particularized in order to file. La.C.Cr.P. Art. 703 (A)-(D). If the district court dismissed the motion simply because it was not particularized, this was error also. An evidentiary hearing shall be held only when the defendant alleges facts that require granting of relief Art. 703(E). Thus, the trial court would have been justified in refusing to conduct a hearing but not in dismissing the motion.