STATE OF LOUISIANA v. AARON BIERRIA (2026)

Relator, Aaron Bierria, seeks review of the trial court's October 21, 2026 judgment denying his motion to continue the trial date. For the reasons that follow, we grant Mr. Bierria's writ application, however, deny relief and request for stay.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On January 29, 2026, Mr. Bierria was indicted on charges of second degree murder with a firearm, a violation of La. R.S. 14:30.1.¹

The defense filed an omnibus motion for discovery on February 9, 2026, and thereafter, subsequent supplemental discovery requests. In particular, the defense requested phone extraction reports and reports generated by the Louisiana State Police Crime Lab for DNA evidence. The trial court set the matter for trial on November 16, 2026.

On September 8, 2026 and September 11, 2026, the trial court conducted a status hearing where Detective Eddie Williams (“Det. Williams”) from the Digital Forensics Unit, discussed the process for phone extractions. At the September 11, 2026 hearing, Det. Williams advised he was “still unable to bypass the phone's security with the latest and greatest update.” The trial court, over defense objections, indicated it would not delay the trial at that point.

Subsequent thereto, defense counsel contacted Det. Williams and learned that the phone, potentially intended for use as State's evidence at trial, had successfully been successfully extracted on June 16, 2026. Defense counsel also discovered from Mr. Bierria, that the lead detective had obtained buccal swabs from him. On October 15, 2026, defense counsel filed a motion to compel discovery from the State as to the extraction report, as well as documentation pertaining to the collection of DNA evidence from Mr. Bierria, and any reports from the Louisiana State Police. On the same date, the defense filed a motion to continue the trial on the grounds of (1) inadequate discovery; (2) the defense's inability to adequately prepare for trial due to the late tender of the extraction report and any reports from the Louisiana State Police Crime Lab; and (3) the defense would start another second degree murder trial the week of November 9, 2026.

The contradictory hearing on the motion to compel discovery was scheduled for October 21, 2026. However, on October 19, 2026, defense counsel withdrew the motion in light of receiving the DNA evidence that had been requested, as well as a copy of the phone extraction data. Defense counsel, however, maintained the motion to continue trial date. The State lodged its objection to Mr. Bierra's motion to continue.

After argument, the trial court denied the motion to continue. The trial court granted the defense's notice of intent to seek writs; however, denied its request for stay.

This timely writ application followed.

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

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

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.

Analysis

In the present matter, the trial court indicated its initial reluctance to continue the trial based on the availability of the phone extraction reports at the September 11, 2026 status hearing. At the hearing on the motion to continue, the State opposed the motion, arguing that the defense would have almost a month to review the 82,000 page extraction report and iterated its belief that the phone data extraction would not have any relevance. In direct questioning from the trial court, the State reiterated it did not believe it would use the extraction report in the prosecution of Mr. Bierria. The defense asserted, as it does in the present writ application, that counsel would be in another trial from November 9th until the end of the week and as such, defense counsel would not have time to review the voluminous report until after the November 9th trial.

In denying the motion to continue, the trial court opined:

So, I am going to deny the motion to continue at this point. Certainly[,] this Court does not send deputies out if you start another trial, Ms. Hull. I will not send deputies out to get you to extract you from the other case. It is over a month. I am sympathetic, but I am going to be denying the continuance.

CONCLUSION/DECREE

Mr. Bierria has not shown that the district court abused its discretion or exceeded its statutory authority to manage its docket as provided under La. C.Cr.P. art. 17. Accordingly, we grant Mr. Bierria's writ to seek supervisory review, however, we deny relief and the request for stay.

WRIT GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED; STAY DENIED

FOOTNOTES

1.   The facts of the underlying offense are not relevant to dispose of the issues raised in the writ application.

Judge Sandra Cabrina Jenkins

LOBRANO, J., CONCURS IN THE RESULTS