Court Opinion

ID: 9395311
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-17 18:04:57.538389+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:07.264912
License: Public Domain

STATE OF LOUISIANA

              COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

STATE    OF    LOUISIANA                                                                    NO.     2023    KW    0468

VERSUS

STEPHON       GARY      FIELDINGS                                                              MAY       17,     2023

In Re:            Stephan         Gary          Fieldings,              applying              for          supervisory
                  writs,        19th     Judicial           District              Court,          Parish         of    East
                  Baton Rouge,           No.     DC-20-02670.

BEFORE:           GUIDRY,       C. J.,    WOLFE AND MILLER,                       JJ.

        WRIT      DENIED.

                                                         JMG
                                                         EW

        Mi11er,          J.,    dissents         and    would          grant        the       writ      application.
I    find     the    trial       court          abused       its       discretion              by     granting          the
defendant's          motion       to     suppress,              which       was      filed         on      the    day    of
trial.        A    defendant        must        allege          the    grounds           on    which        he    claims
that     evidence          should      be       suppressed             in    the        motion        to    suppress.
State    v.       Montejo,        2006-1807 (           La.          5/11/10),           40    So.3d        952,       970.
In    the     instant          case,      the         trial       court          granted           the      motion       to
suppress       based       on    the     state' s        failure            to    demonstrate              the    proper
Miranda       warning          given.     However,              in    the    motion           to     suppress,          the
defendant          asserted        that          his     statements                should           be     suppressed
because       he     was       intoxicated            and    under          the      influence             of    illicit
substances          affecting          his      ability         to    reason         and      his       awareness        of
the    nature       of    the    rights         being    abandoned               and     the      consequences           of
the    decision          to     abandon         them,       but       not    due         to   a     defect        in    the
Miranda       warning.            Accordingly,              I     would          vacate        the       trial        court
ruling      and     remand       this     matter         to      the    trial           court       to     reopen       the
suppression          hearing,           and      consider             the        grounds           raised        in     the
defendant's          motion       to    suppress.           See        State        v.    Scarborough,                2018-
1791 (      La.     11/14/18),           256          So. 3d         265,        266 (" [      W] e        vacate       the
district       court's          ruling          and    remand          with        instructions              that       the
district       court          conduct       a    new     suppression                hearing           at    which,       at
the    minimum,          the     detective            who       was    previously                 unavailable           can
testify.")

COURT    OF APPEAL,            FIRST CIRCUIT

                         R,
                  FOR    THE    COURT