Caseflicks

Supreme Court of Louisiana • 1975

State v. Oliveaux

312 So. 2d 337

Full access

Unlock the video and quiz

The written brief is free to read below. Subscribe to watch the video explainer and take the quiz.

Create an account Log in

Takeaway

In short, this case shows that an alleged defect in a prior conviction cannot be raised through Louisiana's errors-patent review when proving the defect requires inspection of a trial exhibit or other evidence.

Background

Richard Oliveaux was convicted by a jury of driving while intoxicated, third offense, and received the statutory minimum sentence of one year at hard labor. The third-offense charge depended on prior DWI convictions.

On appeal, Oliveaux presented no perfected bills of exceptions and assigned no errors under Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure article 920. He nevertheless argued that the appellate record showed that, at his first DWI conviction, he had neither counsel nor affirmatively waived counsel. Under City of Monroe v. Fincher, such an uncounseled prior conviction could not support repeat-offender imprisonment. The document on which he relied was an extract of minutes from the Monroe City Court, introduced at trial as State Exhibit No. 2.

Issues

Issue #1

Whether the Supreme Court could examine the city-court minute extract, introduced as a trial exhibit, to determine whether Oliveaux had counsel or waived counsel in his first DWI conviction.

Holding

No. Article 920(2) barred review because the minute extract was evidence, not a pleading or proceeding subject to errors-patent review.

Reasoning

Because Oliveaux filed no perfected bills of exceptions and assigned no appealable errors, the Court's review was limited to errors discoverable from a mere inspection of the pleadings and proceedings, without examining evidence. Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure article 920(2) expressly imposes that limit.

The Court distinguished documents that are part of the formal appellate record from documents that are merely transmitted with the record or admitted at trial. The formal record includes such items as the caption, charging instrument, arraignment, plea, jury impaneling, verdict, judgment, and in appropriate circumstances a bill of particulars or a required sequestration minute entry.

Mere inclusion of a document in the materials sent to the appellate court does not make it reviewable for an error patent. Here, the Monroe City Court extract had been admitted as State Exhibit No. 2. It therefore constituted evidence, and article 920(2) specifically forbade the Court from inspecting it in an errors-patent review.

The Court also observed that the extract listed Oliveaux's name, charge, commitment number, and sentence, but did not purport to state whether he was represented by counsel or had waived counsel. Thus, even Oliveaux's characterization of the document did not establish the claimed defect from the face of the material.

Issue #2

Whether the pleadings and proceedings otherwise disclosed a reversible error patent in Oliveaux's third-offense DWI conviction and sentence.

Holding

No. The Court found no discoverable error and affirmed the conviction and sentence.

Reasoning

After conducting the limited review authorized by article 920(2), the Court found no error apparent from the pleadings and proceedings. Without a properly preserved assignment of error that would permit review of the trial evidence, Oliveaux could not obtain appellate relief on his challenge to the use of the prior conviction.