Title: State v. Franton
Citation: 319 So. 2d 405
Docket Number: N/A
State: Louisiana
Issuer: Louisiana Supreme Court
Date: October 1, 1975

319 So. 2d 405 (1975) STATE of Louisiana v. Larry D. FRANTON et al. No. 56381. Supreme Court of Louisiana. October 1, 1975. *406 William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., Ronald C. Martin, Dist. Atty., John S. Stephens, Asst. Dist. Atty., for plaintiff-appellant. Roy L. Beard, Cady &amp; Beard, Shreveport, for Joe McCrary, Steve Bailey, Jack Wynne and John Wynne. Harry D. Simmons, Shreveport, for C. Gary Mitchell and Herbert B. Johnson. SANDERS, Chief Justice. The State charged Larry D. Franton, Herbert B. Johnson, Gary Mitchell, Joe McCrary, Eddie Scott, Steve Bailey, John Wynne, and Jack Wynne by bills of information with trespassing, in violation of LSA-R.S. 14:63. The defendants were arraigned on February 27, 1975, and pleaded not guilty. The cases were set for trial on March 27, 1975. On March 27, prior to trial, the district attorney informed the court that he wished to "nolle prosequi" the trespassing cases. Defense counsel objected and moved that the court dismiss the charges for failure to prosecute. The court granted defendants' motion and dismissed the charges against all eight defendants for failure to prosecute. The State appeals the court's ruling dismissing the charges against the defendants, relying on one specification of error. The State argues that the court erred in failing to give effect to its nolle prosequi and granting the defendants' motion to dismiss. Article 691 of the Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure provides: In City of Lake Charles v. Anderson, 248 La. 787, 182 So. 2d 70 (1966), we held that the entering of a nolle prosequi rests entirely within the discretion of the prosecuting attorney and leave of court is unnecessary. See also State v. Brackin, 113 La. 879, 37 So. 863 (1905); State v. Frazier, 52 La.Ann. 1305, 27 So. 799 (1900); State v. Moise, 48 La.Ann. 109, 18 So. 943 (1895); State v. Bugg, 6 Rob. 63 (1843); Marr's Criminal Jurisprudence of Louisiana, Vol. 1, 2nd Edition, Section 11, p. 35; Wharton's Criminal Law and Procedure (Anderson) Vol. 1, Section 14, p. 19; 22A C.J.S. Criminal Law § 457c, p. 5; 14 Am.Jur., Criminal Law, Section 296, p. 967. The prevailing rule is set forth in Marr's Criminal Jurisprudence of Louisiana (1906) "Nolle Prosequi," Section 466, p. 804, as follows: Defendants assert that since a nolle prosequi does not bar a subsequent prosecution (see LSA-C.Cr.P. Art. 693), the District Attorney's power to nolle prosequi deprives them of their right to a speedy trial. Insofar as the present record discloses, the prosecution has not been reinstituted. If and when the prosecution is reinstituted, the denial of a speedy trial *407 may be properly raised in that proceeding. At present, such a contention is premature. We hold that the nolle prosequi entered by the District Attorney was a valid disposition of the case. Hence, the trial judge erred in granting the defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution. For the reasons assigned, the ruling of the trial court granting the defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute is reversed, and the nolle prosequi is recognized as a valid discharge of the bills of information according to law.