Title: State v. Brown
Citation: 201 So. 2d 277, 250 La. 1023
Docket Number: N/A
State: Louisiana
Issuer: Louisiana Supreme Court
Date: June 30, 1967

201 So. 2d 277 (1967) 250 La. 1023 STATE of Louisiana v. Amos BROWN. No. 48530. Supreme Court of Louisiana. June 30, 1967. *278 Donald R. Miller, Shreveport, for defendant. Jack P. F. Gremillion, Atty. Gen., William P. Schuler, Asst. Atty. Gen., Billy R. Robinson, City Atty., for appellee. HAMLIN, Justice: Defendant, Amos Brown, was charged by affidavit alleging that on November 13, 1966 he "did commit the crime of Vagrancy in that he is a person who does loaf the streets habitually or who frequent the streets habitually at late or unusual hours of the night, or who loiter around any public place of assembly, without lawful business or reason to be present." LSR-R.S. 14:107.[1] After trial, he was adjudged guilty and sentenced to serve nine months imprisonment in the parish jail. He appealed. No perfected bills of exceptions appear in the record, nor was the testimony of the witnesses recorded or transcribed. There is nothing in the trial of the case itself before the Court. Defendant filed no brief in this Court. Hence, we review the case only for errors patent on the face of the record. LSA-R.S. 15:502; State v. Bennett, 235 La. 987, 106 So. 2d 443, and the authorities therein cited; State v. Bowen, 248 La. 549, 180 So. 2d 700; State v. Sanford, 248 La. 630, 181 So. 2d 50. Our examination of the record discloses no such error.[2] *279 We now pass to a discussion of defendant's motion for new trial. The record discloses that on November 13, 1966, a warrant was issued for the arrest of defendant. On December 1, 1966, he appeared in open court and requested a continuance to December 15, 1966; the continuance was granted. On December 15, 1966, defendant was arraigned and pleaded not guilty. After trial on said date, the court found the defendant guilty and remanded him for sentence on December 22, 1966. On that date, Donald R. Miller, Attorney, appeared on behalf of defendant and was granted a continuance to December 29, 1966. On December 29, 1966, Mr. Miller filed a motion for new trial; the motion was denied and defendant was sentenced to serve the term supra. The motion for new trial is based upon the following grounds: The record further discloses that on December 1, 1966, and prior to the arraignment and trial of the defendant on December 15, 1966, the trial judge delivered the following remarks in open court to all who were to be tried before him that day, at which time defendant was present: The extracts from the Minutes appearing in the record disclose that the above opening remarks were delivered by the trial judge on December 22, and 29, 1966, also. We find that defendant was advised of his rights and of his right to have counsel.[3] Cf. Miranda v. State of Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S. Ct. 1602, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694. For the reasons assigned, the conviction and sentence are affirmed. [1] "(7) Persons who loaf the streets habitually or who frequent the streets habitually at late or unusual hours of the night, or who loiter around any public place of assembly, without lawful business or reason to be present; or "* * * "Whoever commits the crime of vagrancy shall be fined not more than two hundred dollars, or imprisoned for not more than nine months, or both. * * *" LSA-R.S. 14:107. [2] During argument the State conceded that the offenses enumerated in the statute were not charged conjunctively, LSA-R.S. 15:222, but it correctly urged that if the affidavit is duplicitous, the objection of duplicity cannot now be urged, as no demurrer or motion to quash the affidavit was filed before the taking of evidence or the rendition of the judgment of guilty. LSA-R.S. 15:221; State v. Scott, 48 La. Ann. 293, 19 So. 141. [3] It is not our understanding that Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 83 S. Ct. 792, 9 L. Ed. 2d 799, applies to misdemeanor cases. Cortinez v. Flournoy, 249 La. 741, 190 So. 2d 909, certiorari denied, 385 U.S. 925, 87 S. Ct. 314, 17 L. Ed. 2d 222; State v. Thomas, 249 La. 742, 190 So. 2d 909.