Cocaine: Owner of Super 8 Motel on Clearview Parkway cops plea (Part 5) UPDATED

Click the pic to score the two page pdf. Vital background on the referenced quash motion that Judge Ansardi sat on for years can be found here and here.

State of LA v Desai plea

Update:

Desai was tagged for a tad more than $1,300 for court costs. Here is his payment plan. (H/T a reader)

14 thoughts on “Cocaine: Owner of Super 8 Motel on Clearview Parkway cops plea (Part 5) UPDATED”

  1. How much cocaine was he found in possession of? These types of “Memoranda of Understanding” in state court are unheard of. Sounds like they wanted to memorialize that he would not later get screwed by the State changing its mind. The fix was clearly in, though, as no jail time on a cocaine charge is not likely.

    1. Precisely, Diem, our courts have lectured defendants that you are not entitled to trust the state unless an agreement is in writing – and any gray area defaults in favor of the State.

      Also, those less politically connected take note – this is an agreement between the DA and defendant. The court need not sign on. A judge abiding the law has to impose some actual incarceration.

      Yes, Virginia, this is the stuff of prosecutorial favoritism which gets rightfully derided nationwide.

  2. Interesting “concessions.”

    The law in Title 40 is not a model of clarity, but here’s an interesting tidbit:
    C. Possession. It is unlawful for any person knowingly or intentionally to possess a controlled dangerous substance as classified in Schedule II unless such substance was obtained directly or pursuant to a valid prescription or order from a practitioner, as provided in R.S. 40:978 while acting in the course of his professional practice, or except as otherwise authorized by this Part.

    (2) Any person who violates this Subsection as to any other controlled dangerous substance shall be imprisoned with or without hard labor for not more than five years and, in addition, may be sentenced to pay a fine of not more than five thousand dollars.

    A fair reading of the foregoing, given that we have a possession of less than 28 grams, results in a “shall be imprisoned” for not more than five years. This, however, does not admit to a sentence where the individual is NOT imprisoned. If the judge is intent on complying with the law, and not substituting his opinion for that of the legislature, Mr. Desai should serve something behind bars.

    Note the penalty for manufacture versus possession differs, and of course the 28 gram rule:
    40:967(F)(1)(a)
    (a) Any person who knowingly or intentionally possesses twenty-eight grams or more, but less than two hundred grams, of cocaine or of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of cocaine or of its analogues as provided in Schedule II(A)(4) of R.S. 40:964, shall be sentenced to serve a term of imprisonment at hard labor of not less than five years, nor more than thirty years, and to pay a fine of not less than fifty thousand dollars, nor more than one hundred fifty thousand dollars.

    B(4)(a) on the other hand is stiffer:

    (4)(a) Production or manufacturing of cocaine or cocaine base or a mixture or substance containing cocaine or its analogues as provided in Schedule II(A)(4) of R.S. 40:964 or oxycodone as provided in Schedule II(A)(1)(o) of R.S. 40:964 or methadone as provided in Schedule II(B)(11) of R.S. 40:964 shall be sentenced to imprisonment at hard labor for not less than ten nor more than thirty years, at least ten years of which shall be served without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence, and may be fined not more than five hundred thousand dollars.

    Of interest are the cross-stipulations concerning the legality of the search. This is an oddity; certainly from the viewpoint of a defendant the desire is to retain the viability of challenge in the event the State backs out on a deal – after all, we all know the State can’t be trusted to abide an agreement even in writing! But the oddity is that given the evolution in law, where the defendant at one time had a fighting chance to the exclude base3d on illegal search, the odds have swung the other way – and no one can accuse the judges in the 24th as favoring the US Fourth/La Const Art 1, sections 2/13/16. So WHY would a district attorney even bother, there’s no incentive.

    True, you have competent defense counsel. However, the point still exists: there is NO incentive for the DA to step down a charge which was obviously first over 28 grams (and we don’t know if the evidence suggests distribution or manufacture) to essentially a suspended sentence, which disregards the mandatory incarceration provisions.

    And, given all that has gone on, why the long dance and having all the characters eating at the table?

    One would wonder why that pompous ass at the Metropolitan Crime Commission hasn’t been over this like white on rice.

  3. Note also that the boy was in possession of less than 28 grams BUT ON TWO DIFFERENT DATES, which translates into two separate charges.

    1. Empire Parish: How about Judge Ansardi doing a Pontius Pilate and sending alleged offender to his alleged home-court in Tangipahoa Parish fo’ more unholy home-cooked suppers despite the fact the two separate incidents you refer to both occurred at and alleged offender sometimes lived at da’ Super 8 .

      1. And yet no outburst from the fat sack of shit at the Metropolitan “No-Crime” Commission. IF this isn’t a political plea-copping, nothing is.

    2. After reading the FOXLIVE Lee Zurick story of how the Jefferson Housing Board executive told a contractor that his contract for $58,000 be submitted at $49,000 and a later planned $9,000 change order so the Board would not have to vote on a contract over $50,000:

      http://www.fox8live.com/story/23408666/2013/09/11/lee-zurik-investigation-vendor-housing-authority

      I’m wondering ????? Did the po-po catch da’ boy wit’ 55 grams of cocaine and told him we’ll charge you wit’ less than 28 grams today but we’ll be back to charge you wit’ another less than 28 grams on another day( Hat-tip to The Empire Parish for the info of two possession days of less than 28 grams)

      He,He just a little fantasy levity on the “Twilight Zone” story of how the Jefferson Parish Judicial system works these miraculous drug possession/distribution cases with white, politically connected defendants.

      1. See Chris Roberts? See Chris Roberts the expert on construction change orders? Too bad the council did not follow Chris Roberts’ advice with JPAC. Deano Bonano of Roberts own staff was instrumental in the disaster as I recall. Roberts has the potential to surpass the former Dragon Queen in Chief in terms of acting ability. Nonetheless HAJP’s “spilt purchase” is a worthy topic.

        1. According to Chris Roberts it is illegal to “split” a contract bid price into two prices (first price and then a planned change order with additional bid price later) BEFORE construction starts. But accordingly to the “King of JP Campaign Payola” it is legal and OK to have as many change orders out the wazoo POST construction initiation ???

          Sounds to me Roberts is “splitting” pubic ( misspelling intentional) hairs to defend the 8 change orders of the JPPAC center debacle. IMHO all change orders are open to fraudulent manipulation both PRE and POST construction initiation and subject to intense scrutiny.

          1. That’s possible, Lock, because your boy Chris left out some important qualifiers, such as the post contract change orders being provable, and that the government agency has to undertake due diligence.
            It helps that your government decisionmaker is all conflicted and can utilize bureaucrats who have the collective wit of a dead ant “justifying” the decisions.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *