STATE OF LOUISIANA v. PETER GRANDPRE (2026)

Relator, Peter Grandpre, seeks review of the district court's August 5, 2026 judgment which denied Relator's Unopposed Motion to Continue Trial. For the reasons that follow, we grant Relator's writ application; reverse the district court's judgment; deny Relator's request for a stay; and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On January 29, 2015, Relator was charged with conspiracy to distribute heroin; conspiracy to commit second degree murder; and second degree murder. After a jury trial, the jury returned a non-unanimous guilty verdict on all charges. The district court sentenced Relator to life imprisonment at hard labor, without the benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence on the second degree murder count. Relator was sentenced to thirty years at hard labor on the conspiracy to commit second degree murder count and twenty years at hard labor on the conspiracy to distribute heroin count. The district court ordered that all sentences are to run concurrent with each other.

Relator appealed his convictions on the grounds that the non-unanimous verdicts violated his constitutional rights. Citing Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U.S. 83, 140 S.Ct. 1390, 206 L.Ed. 2d 583 (2020), this Court found that jury verdicts in state felony trials must be unanimous, and thereby vacated Relator's convictions and sentences and remanded the case to the district court. See State v. Grandpre, 2021-0041, pp. 2-3 (La. App. 4 Cir. 7/7/21), 323 So.3d 955, 956-57.

On May 1, 2026, the State and Relator's former counsel agreed to reset this matter for trial on September 8, 2026. Relator's current counsel of record, Eric Malveau (“Mr. Malveau”), appeared with Relator for a status hearing on July 28, 2026. Mr. Malveau filed an Unopposed Motion to Continue and Reset Trial, To Extend the Deadline for Filing Pretrial Motions, and for Expedited Contradictory Hearing (“motion to continue”) on August 5, 2026. Mr. Malveau represented, in part, that he “recently received the client file from prior counsel” and required additional time to review the substantial and complex material in order to responsibly advise Relator and prepare the case for trial. The district court denied the unopposed motion to continue. Thereafter, Relator gave notice of his intent to seek supervisory review. The district court fixed a return date; however, denied Relator's request for a stay. Relator timely filed the instant writ application.

DISCUSSION

Motion for Continuance

Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure art. 707 provides as follows:

A motion for a continuance shall be in writing and shall allege specifically the grounds upon which it is based and, when made by a defendant, must be verified by his affidavit or that of his counsel. It shall be filed at least seven days prior to the commencement of trial.

Upon written motion at any time and after contradictory hearing, the court may grant a continuance, but only upon a showing that such motion is in the interest of justice.

Standard of Review

This Court discussed the standard of review regarding a district court's ruling on a motion for continuance in State v. Melendez, 2024-0034, pp. 7-8 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1//23/24), 382 So.3d 418, 424:

As this Court has previously explained, the district court has “considerable discretion in ruling on a motion for continuance, and” an appellate court “will not disturb the [district] court's ruling absent a clear abuse of that discretion.” State v. Turner, 2019-0777, pp. 17-18 (La. App. 4 Cir. 5/27/20), 301 So.3d 545, 555 (citing State v. Brown, 2012-0626, pp. 16-17 (La. App. 4 Cir. 4/10/13), 115 So.3d 564, 575). This considerable discretion stems, in part, from the inherent power and authority of the district court. See State v. McCoy, 2014-1449, p. 21 (La. 10/19/16), 218 So.3d 535, 553 (quoting La. C.Cr.P. art. 17). That is,

[a] court possesses inherently all powers necessary for the exercise of its jurisdiction and the enforcement of its lawful orders, including authority to issue such writs and orders as may be necessary or proper in aid of its jurisdiction. It has the duty to require that criminal proceedings shall be conducted with dignity and in an orderly and expeditious manner and to so control the proceedings that justice is done.

La. C.Cr.P. art. 17. This inherent power includes the district court's authority to manage its docket. State v. King, 2010-2638, p. 6 (La. 5/6/11), 60 So.3d 615, 619. Despite this discretion, “Whether a refusal to grant a continuance was justified” will “depend [ ] primarily on the circumstances of the particular case.” Turner, 2019-0777, p. 18, 301 So.3d at 555 (citing State v. Winston, 327 So.2d 380, 382 (La. 1976)).

Abuse of Discretion

Relator's sole argument is the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion to continue. Relator argues the motion complied with the time prerequisites of La. C.Cr.P. art. 707 and demonstrated the continuance was in the interest of justice. Additionally, Relator asserts the motion was unopposed. Upon review, we agree.

We find Relator timely filed his motion to continue. The motion was filed on August 5, 2026. The trial date is September 8, 2026. Thus, the motion was filed well in advance of the seven days prior to trial La. C.Cr.P. art. 707 requires for a timely continuance.

Next, in compliance with La. C.Cr.P. art. 707, Relator's motion to continue articulates with specificity reasons to show the continuance was in the interests of justice. Relator's counsel, Mr. Malveau, asserts he only recently received the file from former counsel of record.

Moreover, Mr. Malveau argues the complexity of the issues raised by the seriousness of the offenses charged necessitates adequate time to prepare for trial. Mr. Malveau highlights extensive investigative materials that require review, as well as witness statements, cell-site testimony, crime scene and chain-of custody records, various forensic materials and reports, and the extensive trial transcript. Mr. Malveau maintains the deadline for filing pre-trial motions had been July 31, 2026, and contends he has not been afforded sufficient time to prepare such pretrial motions and consult with Relator, who is presently housed in Plaquemines Parish.

Trial Court's Per Curiam

In denying the motion to continue, the trial court's per curiam stated, in part, the following:

The current counsel filed the motion to continue on August 5, 2026, well in advance of the trial date of September 8th, which is a reasonable span of time to prepare for the trial date. Lastly, this case, 523-303, is one of the oldest, if not the oldest, case in Section A at this current time. As this is the only way this court can ensure no further delay of trial, this court denied the defense's motion.

However, as referenced in Melendez, although the district court has inherent authority to control its docket, this authority is limited by the particular circumstances in each case. 2024-0034, p. 8, 382 So.3d at 424. These “particular circumstances” may consider whether the continuance is in the interest of justice as required by La. C.Cr.P. art. 707 and whether the mover's motion for continuance is unopposed.

Sufficient Time for Preparation

In this case, we find the reasons supplied by Mr. Malveau which question his ability to “responsibly advise Mr. Grandpre or prepare the case” for trial support the argument that the motion to continue is in the interest of justice. The ultimate goal of a trial is a just result. See State v. Honore, 2023-00461, p. 2 (La. 4/4/23), 359 So.3d 15, 15-16 (Weimer, C.J. additionally concurring). Our established jurisprudence provides that paramount to the many competing interests a district court must weigh is a defendant's rights to a fair trial and effective counsel. See State v. Reeves, 2006-2419, pp. 56-57 (La. 5/5/09), 11 So.3d 1031,1068. Hence, a defendant's right to be represented by prepared counsel to mitigate ineffective assistance of counsel claims and prevent potential errors that might necessitate reversal and retrial takes precedence over the trial court's authority to control its docket. This right is especially relevant in a matter that has already been remanded for re-trial. Therefore, in the interests of justice, we find the trial court abused its discretion in denying Relator's motion to continue.

Unopposed Motion to Continue

Next, Relator argues the trial court also abused its discretion when it failed to consider that the motion to continue was unopposed. As noted in Melendez, 2024-0034, p. 11, 382 So.3d at 426, “this Court has previously held that a district court abuses its discretion in denying a motion for continuance if both sides in a criminal case agree to a continuance of trial,” (citing State v. Barnes, 2011-1186, p. 1 (La. App. 4 Cir. 8/29/11), 72 So.3d 939). See also Honore, 2023-00461, p. 1, 359 So.3d at 15 (reversing the court of appeal and holding the district court abused its discretion in denying a joint motion to continue). Likewise, in the present matter, we find the trial court abused its discretion in denying Relator's unopposed motion to continue. This argument has merit.

DECREE

Based on the foregoing reasons, we grant Relator's writ application; reverse the district court's August 5, 2026 judgment which denied Relator's unopposed motion to continue trial; and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Having granted Relator's writ application, we deny Relator's request for a stay as moot.

WRIT GRANTED, JUDGMENT REVERSED; STAY DENIED

Judge Sandra Cabrina Jenkins

LOBRANO, J., DISSENTS AND ASSIGNS REASONS