Background
Desmond Carter’s counsel filed a motion for speedy trial on April 13, 2026. Counsel submitted an affidavit certifying that the defense was prepared to proceed to trial within the deadlines established by Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure article 701 and that the case was in an appropriate posture for trial.
The record, however, showed that several defense motions remained unresolved. Most notably, a motion to quash Count 1 of the indictment was still pending. That motion raised a constitutional issue, and at the May 13, 2026 hearing there was no proof in the record that the Louisiana Attorney General had received notice. Carter also did not withdraw his pending motions. The district court nevertheless granted the speedy-trial motion, prompting the State to seek supervisory review.
The Court’s Holding
The Louisiana Court of Appeal, First Circuit granted the State’s writ application. It held that defense counsel’s certification of readiness was premature because unresolved defense motions—particularly the constitutional motion to quash—showed that the matter was not yet in an appropriate posture for trial.
The court therefore concluded that the district court improperly granted Carter’s speedy-trial motion. It reversed that ruling and remanded the matter for further proceedings. Judge Fields dissented and would have denied the writ application.
Key Takeaways
- A defense certification of readiness for a speedy trial may be premature when significant defense motions remain unresolved.
- The pending motion to quash was especially important because it raised a constitutional issue and the record did not establish notice to the Louisiana Attorney General.
- The appellate court reversed the order granting a speedy trial and remanded for further proceedings.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that a formal certification of trial readiness must match the case’s actual procedural posture. A defendant cannot obtain relief based on asserted readiness while retaining unresolved motions that may materially affect the indictment or the issues to be tried.
For practitioners, the ruling highlights the need to resolve or withdraw pending motions—and to complete any required notice concerning constitutional challenges—before certifying that a criminal case is ready to proceed under article 701.