State v. Lester

Citations: 165 So. 3d 1181; 2003 La. App. LEXIS 3873; 2015 WL 2405937Docket: No. 49,787-KA

Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal; May 20, 2015; Louisiana; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

The state appeals a decision to quash a bill of information against James Hayward Lester, principal of ReGenesis Construction Company, who was charged with filing a false public record related to his contractor's license application. Initially filed on November 18, 2009, the charges included one count of home improvement fraud and one count of filing false public records. The latter charge, which was later amended, accused Lester of making a false statement regarding his criminal history on the application submitted on February 26, 2003, where he answered "No" to a question about prior felony or misdemeanor convictions. In reality, Lester had a prior conviction for possession of marijuana in 1994, which he did not disclose. Subsequent to the application, he annually renewed his contractor's license without disclosing this conviction, as the renewal forms did not ask about past convictions. Lester explained the discrepancy in an October 2009 letter, claiming a misunderstanding about the wording of the application and believing his record would be automatically expunged. On April 9, 2014, he filed a motion to quash the amended charges, asserting that the prosecution was untimely since the application in question was submitted over six years prior to the charges being filed. A hearing on the motion took place on June 19, 2014. The court affirmed the motion to quash.

The prosecutor asserted that the state had a four-year period to prosecute the defendant, starting from the discovery of the offense. The defense contended that the state was already aware of the issue due to a report to the Louisiana licensing board, which had declined to suspend or revoke the defendant's license despite knowing about the incorrect application. The court confirmed that the application was filed in February 2003 and rejected due to an alleged error regarding a prior conviction. The court noted that the state had knowledge of the situation as of February 2008, indicating that the licensing board had a responsibility to inform the District Attorney if a crime was suspected. Consequently, the court granted the motion to quash and dismissed the prosecution.

On appeal, the state argued that the trial court mistakenly granted the motion, claiming that notice to the licensing board sufficed for law enforcement notification. The cited authority suggested that the licensing board could revoke a contractor's license for failing to meet licensure requirements, implying a fiduciary duty under Louisiana law. The burden rested on the defendant to prove that the proper authorities had knowledge of the offense to trigger the prosecution timeline, with the licensing board not qualifying as such an authority. The appellate standard for review of a motion to quash is abuse of discretion.

The defendant's motion relied on Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure Article 532(7), which permits such a motion when the prosecution time limit has expired. The relevant statute states that filing false public records is a felony, punishable by imprisonment or fines, with a four-year limitation for prosecution. Article 577 allows for the timeliness of prosecution to be challenged at any time but only once, with the state carrying the burden to demonstrate that the prosecution was timely initiated.

Under Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure Article 572, the state has four years from the commission of a felony to initiate prosecution if it is not punishable by hard labor. The burden is on the state to prove timely prosecution. Articles 573 and 573.1 provide exceptions that can pause the time limits under specific circumstances, such as misappropriation by a fiduciary, public bribery, extortion by public officials, or aggravated battery against a minor. The 1966 comments on Article 572 clarify that the time begins at the offense's commission rather than when it becomes known, which addresses past issues with the "made known" test.

The purpose of these time limits is to balance the interests of the state and defendants, ensuring justice while protecting defendants from prolonged exposure to prosecution when evidence may be compromised due to time. In the case referenced, Article 573 does not apply, as the offense does not fall under its categories. The prosecution for filing a false public record began after the offense, and the original charge filed on November 18, 2009, was more than four years after the offense occurred, making it untimely under Article 572. The state's argument regarding a continuing duty to correct misinformation was not presented at the trial court level and is thus not permissible now.

The defendant's annual renewal applications lack actionable assertions regarding the accuracy of the original application, which is the basis for the prosecution. Each bill of information cites the “Application for Original Contractor’s License” as the initiating document. Drawing from *State v. Stanley*, certain criminal offenses are deemed continuing until a charge is filed or illegal activity ceases. La. R.S. 14:133 outlines that filing false public records includes maintaining false records with knowledge of their falsity. The term “maintaining” pertains to those responsible for record retention; however, no Louisiana law mandates that the applicant retain their original license application, placing that duty on the Board. Consequently, the defendant cannot be prosecuted for failing to maintain such records, as his actions do not constitute a continuing offense. The trial court's decision to grant the motion to quash was correct and is affirmed, with the timing of prosecution initiation based on when the crime occurred, not when the prosecutor learned of it. Additionally, the contractor’s record-keeping requirements pertain to maintaining records for compliance with licensure but do not address the original application itself.