Case Name: STATE of Louisiana v. David PORTER
Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1993-03-11
Citations: 615 So. 2d 1073
Docket Number: No. 92-K-2190
Parties: STATE of Louisiana v. David PORTER.
Judges: Before SCHOTT, C.J., and LOBRANO and JONES, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 615
Pages: 1073–1075

Head Matter:
STATE of Louisiana v. David PORTER.
No. 92-K-2190.
Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.
March 11, 1993.
Writ Denied April 2, 1993.
David Porter, in pro. per.
Harry F. Connick, Dist. Atty., New Orleans, for respondent.
Before SCHOTT, C.J., and LOBRANO and JONES, JJ.

Opinion:
SCHOTT, Chief Judge.
We grant certiorari in order to review the trial court's denial of defendant's motions to recuse the trial judge and to suppress his identification. We affirm.
Defendant is awaiting trial on a charge of simple robbery.
As to the motion to recuse it was properly tried before another judge of the trial court and a transcript of the hearing is part of our record. The sole basis for his motion was that he had appeared before the judge in previous cases and was known to him so that defendant felt he could not have a fair trial before this judge. However, the judge testified that he did not know the defendant, had no animosity toward him, and could give him a fair trial. The trial judge hearing the motion stated that he found no merit to it and this conclusion is supported by the testimony. Relator failed to present any evidence to support his motion for the judge's recusation.
As to the motion to suppress his identification defendant claims he was identified because he was sitting in the police station in plain view of the victim when he was identified. He states that this amounted to a line-up at which he was not represented by counsel. He contends that his rights have been violated because the trial court did not hold a hearing on his motion before denying it.
An evidentiary hearing is mandatory only when the defendant alleges facts that would require the granting of relief. The trial judge held a preliminary hearing prior to his denial of the motion to suppress. While we have no transcript of the preliminary hearing we must assume that the circumstances of defendant's identification were presented at that time. A second hearing would be superfluous. If defendant is convicted he can raise the issue on appeal.
Accordingly, the orders complained of are affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
JONES, J., dissents in part, with written reasons.