author: MONACO, J.

text:
    Candy LOVELL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 5D03-3786.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Sept. 24, 2004.
    James B. Gibson, Public Defender, and Lyle Hitchens, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.
    Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Rebecca Roark Wall, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.
   MONACO, J.

Candy Lovell appeals the judgment and sentence imposed on her after being found guilty of first-degree felony murder, aggravated child abuse, aggravated manslaughter of a child, and-neglect of a child with great bodily harm. Because the case law leads us to the conclusion that the convictions and sentences for both first-degree murder and ■ aggravated manslaughter of the same child violate the state and federal constitutional principle proscribing double jeopardy, we reverse the conviction of aggravated manslaughter, but otherwise affirm.

Ms. Lovell and her co-defendant, Jamie Hawkins, were tried for various offenses arising out of the death of Ms. Lovell’s young daughter, Summer. The evidence presented by the State indicated that Summer’s death was caused by multiple blunt force injuries. As a result of the application of this force to the child’s abdomen, her bladder ruptured, and urine flowed into her abdominal cavity. Although immediate treatment would have saved Summer’s life, Ms. Lovell and Mr. Hawkins delayed having her seen by medical personnel' for' several days.

As a result of her convictions, Ms. Lovell was sentenced to life in prison for first-degree felony murder, 25.9 years in prison for aggravated manslaughter, fifteen years in prison for neglect of a child with great bodily harm, all of which were to run concurrently, and fifteen years probation for aggravated child abuse, to run consecutive to the prison terms. As noted, Ms. Lovell argues that her convictions and sentences for first-degree murder and aggravated manslaughter violate double jeopardy.

In order to determine whether two convictions constitute - a violation of the principles of double jeopardy, we are required to go beyond a simple application of the test set forth in Blockburger v. U.S., 284 U.S. 299, 52 S.Ct. 180, 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932), as codified in section 775.021, Florida Statutes (2001). Dual convictions satisfying Blockburger may still be violative of the constitution if the offenses are considered to be “degree variants of the same core offense.” See Gordon v. State, 780 So.2d 17 (Fla.2001); Mitchell v. State, 830 So.2d 944, 946 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002), review denied, 845 So.2d 892 (Fla.2003).

We begin our analysis with the exceptions to the Blockburger test found in section 775.021(4)(b), Florida Statutes (2001). That statute provides that:

The intent of the Legislature is to convict and sentence for each criminal offense committed in the course of one criminal episode or transaction and not to allow the principle of lenity as set forth in subsection (1) to determine legislative intent. Exceptions to this rule of construction are:
1. Offenses which require identical elements of proof.
2. Offenses which are degrees of the same offense as provided by statute.
3. Offenses which are lesser offenses the statutory elements of which are subsumed by the greater offense.

In order to determine whether the second exception — the exception for degree variants — applies, one must undertake a two-step inquiry. First we must determine whether the crimes constitute separate offenses under Blockburger and section 775.021(4)(a). If so, we must determine whether the crimes are degree variants or aggravated forms of the same core offense. Gordon, 780 So.2d at 21; Mitchell, 830 So.2d at 946.

In the present case the crimes of first-degree felony murder and aggravated manslaughter are separate offenses under Blockburger because each crime contains an element that the other does not. A conviction for felony murder in the present case required the State to prove that the death of the child occurred during the commission of the felony of aggravated child abuse. Aggravated manslaughter, however, only required proof that the child died as a result of Ms. Lovell’s culpable negligence in failing to get medical attention for the child. In addition, it is clear that the offenses are not degrees of the same offense, nor is one offense a lesser offense subsumed by the greater.

We must now consider whether the two offenses are degree variants or aggravated forms of core offenses. Both crimes are proscribed by Chapter 782 of the Florida Statutes, entitled Homicide. Both are addressed to, and punish the same evil, the perpetration of an act leading to death. Both involve one of the core crimes, homicide. Using this analysis, we held in Mitchell that dual convictions for attempted second-degree murder and attempted felony murder were barred by the prohibition against double jeopardy. Finally, we consider the following language of the Florida Supreme Court in Gordon:

“We have held repeatedly that section 775.021 did not abrogate our previous pronouncements concerning punishments for singular homicides.” (Citations omitted). Indeed, this principle is based on notions of fundamental fairness which recognize the inequity that inheres in multiple punishments for a singular killing.

Gordon at 25. See also State v. Chapman, 625 So.2d 888, 889 (Fla.1993) (multiple convictions for singular homicides are impermissible); Houser v. State, 474 So.2d 1193 (Fla.1985) (only one homicide conviction and sentence may be imposed for a single death).

Accordingly, we conclude that Ms. Lo-vell should not have been convicted and sentenced for both first-degree felony murder and aggravated manslaughter of a child for the death of her daughter. We, therefore, vacate only the conviction and sentence for aggravated manslaughter of a child. While we have considered the other arguments raised by Ms. Lovell in this appeal, we conclude that they are without merit, and thus affirm the judgment and sentences in all respects other than for aggravated manslaughter.

AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part.

THOMPSON and PLEUS, JJ., concur.


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: SHARP, W., J.

license: Public Domain

text:
    Kevin GIBLIN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 5D04-1722.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Sept. 24, 2004.

      Kevin Giblin, Clermont, pro se.
    No Appearance for Appellee.
   ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

SHARP, W., J.

We grant Giblin’s motion for rehearing and substitute the following for our prior per curiam affirmance.

Giblin filed a motion pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, seeking post-conviction relief in a criminal case. He had been convicted of first degree murder, and burglary of a dwelling with an assault or battery. His convictions and sentences were affirmed on appeal. In this motion, Giblin asserted five grounds to establish ineffective assistance of trial counsel.

The trial court summarily denied all grounds and we initially affirmed, agreeing that they were without merit or refuted by the record. However, in light of Nelson v. State, 875 So.2d 579 (Fla.2004), which was issued by the Florida Supreme Court while this case was still under consideration by this court, we find that the ruling below summarily dismissing one ground — that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate or depose witnesses — must be reversed and remanded for further consideration.

In Nelson, the Florida Supreme Court approved this court’s decision in Nelson v. State, 816 So.2d 694 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). In that case, this court held that a post-conviction claim that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to interview or call a certain witness must include an assertion that the witness would in fact have been available to testify at trial. However, the Florida Supreme Court added an additional refinement to that case law: that in a case where such an allegation has not been made the trial court should grant the defendant leave to remedy this pleading defect, within a specific time. If the amendment is not timely filed then the trial court can render a summary denial with prejudice.

In this case, Giblin alleged that his trial counsel was ineffective because he failed to investigate and depose two potential defense witnesses that could have supported his claim of self-defense. The trial judge summarily denied Giblin’s motion on this ground because he failed to allege the witnesses would have been available to testify at trial relying on Milton v. State, 872 So.2d 965 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). The trial court’s ruling was correct at that time.

Accordingly we affirm the trial court’s summary denial of Giblin’s motion on all grounds except the one relating to failure of trial counsel to investigate defense witnesses. With regard to that ground, we reverse and remand pursuant to Nelson in order that the trial court may allow Giblin leave to amend his motion within a specific period of time.

Rehearing GRANTED; AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; REMANDED.

PETERSON and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.

      . § 782.04(1), Fla. Stat.

      . § 810.02(2)(a), Fla. Stat.

        .See Giblin v. State, 842 So.2d 129 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003).


author: VAN NORTWICK, J.

text:
    Thomas GALAIDA, Appellant, v. AUTOZONE, INC. and Liberty Mutual Insurance, Appellees.
    No. 1D03-2097.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    Sept. 27, 2004.

      Jack Keller, Winter Park and Bill McCabe, Longwood, for Appellant.
    Sonya H. Hoener and Allison'H. Hauser of Marks Gray, P.A., Jacksonville, for Ap-pellees.
   VAN NORTWICK, J.

Thomas Galaida challenges a final worker’s compensation order which denied entirely his claim for medical and indemnity benefits. The Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) denied the claim on the finding that Galaida substantially deviated from employment at the time of his accident. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the denial of the claim.

While Galaida was working at an auto parts store, he walked outside to his car which was parked in the store parking lot for the purpose of obtaining a cigarette. As he opened the car door, a loaded firearm fell to the ground and discharged. Galaida was shot in the leg. While he originally claimed he was the victim of a drive-by shooting, Galaida later admitted he was wounded by his own weapon. It is undisputed that Galaida’s employer maintains a policy against possession of firearms on the store premises. The JCC found that this store policy was violated by Galaida, and, thus, he substantially deviated from work activities such that he was not entitled to worker’s compensation benefits.

On appeal, Galaida argues that, because store employees were permitted to take a smoking break, his visit to the ear to obtain a cigarette cannot be deemed a deviation from employment. Instead, Ga-laida argues, his injury must be deemed compensable under the personal comfort doctrine, which provides that an employee administering to his personal comfort does not leave the course of employment, unless the extent of the departure is great or that the method chosen to attend to that comfort is unusual and unreasonable. See Bayfront Medical Center v. Harding, 653 So.2d 1140 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). The personal comfort doctrine is based on the rationale that an employee’s attendance to his personal comfort does not remove that employee from the scope and course of employment because such attendance to personal comfort “is conducive to the facilitation of the employment.” Holly Hill Fruit Products, Inc. v. Krider, 473 So.2d 829, 830-1 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985).

The personal comfort doctrine incorporates a foreseeability element to the cause of injury. Thus, in Holly Hill Fruit Products, an employee who was injured while crossing a street to purchase cigarettes was held to have sustained a compensable injury because the “trip was a foreseeable and non-prohibited refreshment break activity, "and employer’s authority over claimant was not significantly dissipated during the course of the trip.” Id. at 830 (emphasis added). Similarly, in B & B Cash Grocery Stores v. Workman, 431 So.2d 171, 174 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983), an employee injured while attending to his personal comfort by washing off in a river was held to have sustained a compensable injury because “diving into the Alafia River was a momentary deviation without obvious danger, was impliedly tolerated, and was reasonably foreseeable ” (emphasis added).

Being exposed to a firearm, however, is not a foreseeable consequence of an authorized cigarette break, especially when the possession of a firearm is strictly prohibited by the employer. Moreover, Galaida’s possession of a firearm, in violation of his employer’s policy, was not conducive to the employer’s interests. Thus, he should not benefit from the doctrine. See Boulevard Manor Nursing Home v. Lacombe, 557 So.2d 945, 946 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)(“Claimant [a nurse] took her break early, did not have permission to leave, and, in particular, did not have permission to leave with the narcotics key. Under these circumstances, substantial deviation from employment was established.”).

We find persuasive the decision of the South Carolina supreme court in Dukes v. Rural Metro Corp., 356 S.C. 107, 587 S.E.2d 687 (S.C.2003). There, the court held that an injury sustained as a result of a gunshot wound is not an injury eligible for worker’s compensation benefits. The employee in Dukes, a paramedic, was taking a smoking break when he accompanied a fellow employee to her car to examine a newly-acquired pistol. The pistol accidentally discharged, and the employee was shot in the leg. The employee sought worker’s compensation benefits under the personal comfort doctrine. The court held that while an accidental injury which occurs “during a routine break from work is compensable under the personal comfort doctrine,” an injury sustained by a paramedic examining a colleague’s gun during a smoking break is not because the personal comfort doctrine is intended to apply only to dangers attendant to routine personal breaks. The Dukes court explained:

Such acts as are necessary to the life, comfort, and convenience of the servant while at work, though strictly personal to himself, and not acts of service, are incidental to the service, and an injury sustained in the performance thereof is deemed to have arisen out of the employment. A man must breathe and occasionally drink water while at work. In these and other conceivable instances he ministers unto himself, but in a remote sense these acts contribute to the furtherance of his work ... That such acts mil be done in the course of employment is necessarily contemplated, and they are inevitable incidents. Such dangers as attend them, therefore, are incident dangers. At the time injuries occasioned by them are accidents resulting from the employment.

587 S.E.2d at 689 (quoting Mack v. Branch No. 12, Post Exchange, Fort Jackson, 207 S.C. 258, 35 S.E.2d 838, 840 (S.C.1945); emphasis added).

Accordingly, Galaida’s accident is not compensable under the personal comfort doctrine.

Further, we reject Galaida’s additional argument that his accident is com-pensable under the so-called “horseplay doctrine.” See, e.g., Tanguilan v. PMI Employee Leasing, 832 So.2d 176 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)(holding that claimant only momentarily deviated from his employment when he lit an explosive while waiting to clock out at the end of his shift and thus his injuries were compensable); Dunlevy v. Seminole County DPS, 792 So.2d 592 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)(holding that the claimant’s playful roughhousing with another employee while the shift changed was only a momentary and insignificant deviation from work duties and that consequently the claimant’s injuries arising from the incident were compensable). Under this doctrine, if an employee is injured during a momentary deviation from employment for the purpose of play, the injury may nevertheless be compensable. Ga-laida’s claim is not compensable under the horseplay doctrine, however, because Ga-laida’s injury did not result or arise from momentary horseplay.

Accordingly, the order denying worker’s compensation benefits is AFFIRMED.

WOLF, C.J. and ERVIN, J., concur.


author: PER CURIAM.

text:
    AMERIMARK, INC. d/b/a Reynolds Building Products and Gates McDonald, Appellants, v. Richard HUTCHINSON, Appellee.
    No. 1D03-5054.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    Sept. 27, 2004.
    Joanne M. Prescott and Pamela L. Foels of Zimmerman, Kiser & Sutcliffe, P.A., Orlando, for Appellants.
    Daniel L. Hightower and Kenneth M. Hesser of Daniel L. Hightower, P.A., Oca-la, for Appellee.
   PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a workers’ compensation order imposing sanctions on Amerimark Inc., employer/carrier (E/C), for its failure to comply timely with the terms of its joint stipulation, which agreed that certain compensation benefits would be paid within 14 days after the agreement was approved. Because the judge of compensation claims (JCC) failed to decide whether the untimely payment was willful, as required by Frix v. All State Insurance, 854 So.2d 258 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003), we reverse the order of sanctions and remand the case with directions that further proceedings be conducted for such purpose.

The JCC approved the parties’ stipulation on March 25, 2003, and the E/C mailed the payment to its attorney on April 8, 2003, or 14 days thereafter. After receiving the checks on the 24th day, the E/C’s attorney placed them in the mail that same day, addressed to claimant’s attorney. As the JCC correctly observed in his order awarding penalties and interest, it is the date checks of payment are placed in the mail that determines a payment’s timeliness. See Clay Hyder Truck Lines v. Atherton, 400 So.2d 1295 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). The JCC concluded that the payments were late, because they were sent on the 14th day to the E/C’s counsel rather than to claimant or his counsel. See Paver Dev. Corp. v. McDevitt, 419 So.2d 1156 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). The JCC acknowledged that had the E/C sent the checks directly to claimant or his attorney on April 8, 2003, payment would have been deemed timely, under Clay Hyder.

The JCC abused his discretion by imposing sanctions without deciding whether the E/C’s untimely payments were willful or made in good faith. In a case decided shortly before the entry of the order now under review, this court emphasized that the JCC has the authority to impose penalties for late payment of a settlement pursuant to Florida Rule of Workers’ Compensation Procedure 4.150, but that “sanctions under this rule can be implemented only upon a showing of willfulness.” Frix v. All State Ins. 854 So.2d 258, 259 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). “Willfulness” has been characterized in the cases cited in Frix, and in other cases, as deliberate defiance of a JCC’s order. See, e.g., Horizon Healthcare v. Murphy, 660 So.2d 1065 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995) (holding that dismissal was unduly harsh, even though the E/C deliberately ignored the JCC’s order); Hanna v. Indus. Labor Serv., Inc., 636 So.2d 773 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994) (reversing, because the JCC had not found that the E/C’s act was willful behavior or bad faith); Plouffe v. Lake County Sheriff's Office, 653 So.2d 507 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995) (concluding that sanctions were not warranted absent a showing that the employer/servicing agent had defied the JCC’s order); Bee Gee Shrimp, Inc. v. Carreras, 516 So.2d 1121 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987) (holding that striking the E/C’s defenses was unduly harsh, absent a showing that the E/C had arbitrarily or willfully disobeyed the JCC’s order).

Because the JCC’s order did not consider whether the E/C’s mailing of the payments to its attorney 14 days after the entry of the order approving the parties’ stipulation was willful or in bad faith, the order imposing sanctions is reversed and the cause is remanded to the JCC for such determination.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

ERVIN, PADOVANO and LEWIS, JJ., concur.

      . A judge of compensation claims has discretionary authority.to impose sanctions for a late payment of a settlement reached pursuant to section 440.20(1 l)(c), (2003). See Fla. R. Work. Comp. P. 4.150(a).

      . Claimant contends he was not required to show willfulness, relying upon Paver Development Corp. v. McDevitt, 419 So.2d 1156 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), wherein this court affirmed the assessment of a penalty, even though there was no showing that the E/C intended to delay payment to the claimant. In that case, however, the court was reviewing the imposition of sanctions pursuant to section 440.20(8), Florida Statutes, which imposes a mandatory penalty if compensation is not paid within seven days after it becomes due. The JCC imposed sanctions in both Frix and the case at bar pursuant to the authority provided in rule 4.150, which is discretionary.


text:
    Jerry McGEE, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D03-237.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    Sept. 27, 2004.
    Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and Danielle Jorden, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.
    Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, and Bryan Jordan, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
   PER CURIAM.

The appellant challenges his conviction for attempted robbery while masked and armed with a firearm. He first argues that the trial court .erred by denying his motion for judgment of acquittal because the state failed to present sufficient evidence that he intended to steal from the alleged victim, a necessary element of his offense. We conclude that there was sufficient evidence to support this element and that the court properly denied the motion. The appellant next argues that the court erred by excluding certain testimony that he sought to introduce during cross examination of one of the state’s witnesses; in particular, testimony that he had provided statements in conjunction with his confession that were consistent with his theory of innocence. As the state had already introduced the incriminating aspects of the appellant’s statements during direct examination, the appellant was entitled to introduce his contemporaneous consistent statements in accordance with the rule of completeness. See Christopher v. State, 583 So.2d 642 (Fla.1991). Because we are unable to say that the court’s error in precluding this testimony was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, see State v. DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129 (Fla.1986), the appellant’s conviction is reversed and this case is remanded.

ALLEN, VAN NORTWICK and BROWNING, JJ., concur.


author: LPER CURIAM.

text:
    In re Willie Fred SMITH.
    No. 2004-B-0489.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 3, 2004.
   ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS

LPER CURIAM.

This disciplinary matter arises from one count of formal charges filed by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (“ODC”) against respondent, Willie Fred Smith, a disbarred attorney.

PRIOR DISCIPLINARY HISTORY

Before we address the current charges, we find it helpful to review respondent’s prior disciplinary history. Respondent was admitted to the practice of law in Louisiana in 1990. In 1994, he was admonished for failure to cooperate with the ODC. In 1998, he was admonished a second time for neglect of a legal matter, failure to account for or return an unearned fee and failure to cooperate with the ODC.

In 2000, we considered a proceeding involving eight counts of formal charges against respondent for conduct arising in 1997 and 1998. These charges alleged respondent neglected client matters, failed to communicate with clients, failed to provide an accounting and return unearned fees, failed to cooperate with ODC and practice law while ineligible to do so. After considering the record, we suspended respondent for one year and one day. In re: Smith, 00-2627 (La.11/27/00), 775 So.2d 1 (hereinafter referred to as “Smith I ”).

Less than two years later, we addressed a second disciplinary proceeding against respondent. This proceeding, arising from conduct which occurred between R1998 and 2000, involved allegations that respondent repeatedly neglected client matters after accepting fees and failed to cooperate with the ODC. We found respondent’s actions in this matter, combined with his prior disciplinary record, proved that he demonstrated a callous disregard for the standards of the legal profession. Accordingly, we disbarred respondent from the practice of law. In re: Smith, 02-1109 (La.6/21/02), 821 So.2d 1286 (hereinafter referred to as “Smith II ”).

FORMAL CHARGES

The current proceeding against respondent arises from filed two sets of formal charges against respondent by the ODC. The first set of formal charges, consisting of two counts and bearing the disciplinary board’s docket number 02-DB-081, was filed on August 12, 2002. The second set of formal charges, consisting of' three counts and bearing the disciplinary board’s docket number 02-DB-124, was filed on December 2, 2002. The two sets of charges were consolidated by order of the hearing committee chair dated January 20, 2003.

02-DB-081

Count I

On September 1, 2000, respondent was certified ineligible to practice law in Louisiana for failing to pay his bar dues. He did not become eligible again until October 3, 2000. Nevertheless, in September 2000, respondent represented one client in a criminal matter, represented one client in a civil matter, and filed petitions for divorce for two other clients. In October 2000, the district attorney and a judge in Winn Parish filed complaints against respondent with the ODC. Respondent failed to | ^cooperate in the ODC’s investigation of the complaints filed in connection with these matters.

The ODC alleged that respondent’s conduct violated the following provisions of the Rules of Professional Conduct: Rules 5.5(a) (engaging in the unauthorized practice of law), 8.1(c) (failure to cooperate with the ODC in its investigation), 8.4(a) (violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct), 8.4(d) (engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration- of justice), and 8.4(g) (failure to cooperate with the ODC in its investigation).

Count II

Respondent was certified ineligible to practice law in Louisiana for failing to pay his bar dues from September 30 through October 24, 1994, from September 6 through September 22, 1995, and from January 1 through July 12, 1996. Nevertheless, during these time periods, respondent represented clients in both criminal and civil matters on twenty-nine occasions. In April 2001, a judge in Winn Parish filed a complaint against respondent with the ODC. Respondent failed to cooperate in the ODC’s investigation of the complaint.

The ODC alleged that respondent’s conduct violated the following provisions of the Rules of Professional Conduct: Rules 5.5(a), 8.1(c), 8.4(a), 8.4(d), and 8.4(g).

02-DB-124

Count I — The Johnson Matter

In 1997, Jerry Johnson retained respondent in a collection matter. After obtaining a judgment in favor of Mr. Johnson in February 1999, respondent agreed to Lpursue collection and accepted $150 for filing fees. In March 2001, after respondent failed to do any work or communicate with his client, Mr. Johnson requested that respondent return his file and provide an accounting. Respondent did neither. Respondent also did not inform Mr. Johnson that he was suspended from the practice of law in November 2000. In April 2001, Mr. Johnson filed a complaint against respondent with the ODC. Respondent provided a sworn statement on March 7, 2002, but he failed to cooperate in the ODC’s investigation by not responding to correspondence and ignoring the ODC’s second subpoena.

The ODC alleged that respondent’s conduct violated the following provisions of the Rules of Professional Conduct: Rules 1.3 (failure to act with reasonable diligence- and promptness in representing a client), 1.4 (failure to communicate with a client), 1.5(c) (contingent fee arrangements), 1.15(b) (safekeeping property of clients or third persons), 1.16(d) (obligations upon termination of the representation), 8.1(c), 8.4(a), and 8.4(g).

Count II — The Futrell Matter

In May 2000, Shirley Futrell retained respondent to handle an adoption. Respondent accepted a total fee of $700 for the entire matter, which Ms. Futrell paid. Respondent filed the Petition for Adoption but did not pay the filing fee out of the $700 as agreed. After several months with no progress in the adoption, respondent stopped communicating with Ms. Fut-rell. In September 2001, Ms. Futrell filed a complaint against respondent with the ODC. Respondent provided a sworn statement on March 7, 2002, but he failed to cooperate in the ODC’s investigation by not providing a copy of Ms. Futrell’s file.

| ¡¡The ODC alleged that respondent’s conduct violated the following provisions of the Rules of Professional Conduct: Rules 1.3, 1.4, 1.15(b), 1.16(d),-8.1(c), 8.4(a), and 8.4(g).

Count III — The Snow Matter

After filing for bankruptcy, Louis Snow retained respondent to handle the sale of his property to pay off his creditors. With the -proceeds from the sale, respondent paid off all of Mr. Snow’s creditors except one. In September 2001, this creditor obtained a judgment against Mr. Snow. Mr. Snow requested an accounting of- creditor payments, but respondent, never provided one. In November 2001, a Winn Parish judge filed a complaint on behalf of Mr. Snow with the ODC. Respondent provided a sworn statement on March 7, 2002, but he failed to cooperate, in the ODC’s investigation by not providing a copy of Mr. Snow’s file, or a copy of his trust account bank statements.

The ODC alleged that respondent’s conduct violated the following provisions of the Rules of Professional Conduct: Rules 1.3,1.4,1.15, 8.1(c), 8.4(a), and 8.4(g).

DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS

Respondent failed to answer or otherwise reply fo the formal charges. Accordingly, the factual allegations contained therein were deemed admitted and proven by clear and convincing evidence pursuant to Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 11(E)(3). No formal hearing was held, but the parties were given an opportunity to file with the -hearing committee written arguments and documentary evidence on the issue of sanctions.

| shearing Committee Recommendation

After consideration of the ODC’s submission in response to the deemed admitted order, the hearing committee found respondent violated the Rules of Professional Conduct as alleged in the formal charges. The committee found no mitigating factors in this case. As aggravating factors, it recognized respondent’s prior disciplinary record (including his suspension in Smith I and his disbarment in Smith II) and bad faith obstruction of the disciplinary proceeding by intentionally failing to comply with the rules or orders of the disciplinary agency.

The committee observed that the instant misconduct occurred during the same time as the misconduct at issue in Smith II. Citing Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Chatelain, 573 So.2d 470 (La.1991), the committee recommended that the current violations be added to respondent’s disciplinary file for consideration in the event he applies for readmission.

Neither respondent nor the ODC objected to the hearing committee’s recommendation.

Disciplinary Board Recommendation

After reviewing this matter, the disciplinary board found the findings of the committee are supported by the deemed admitted facts. The board concluded that respondent violated duties owed to his clients, the public, the legal system, and the profession. The board further determined that respondent acted intentionally. Respondent caused harm to Mr. Snow by converting his funds and allowing a judgment to be taken against him. Respondent also neglected clients and failed to 17provide accountings. Finally, by practicing law while ineligible, respondent harmed both the legal system and his clients.

The board agreed with the aggravating factors found by the hearing committee and added the following factors: dishonest or selfish motive, pattern of misconduct, multiple offenses, vulnerability of victims, and indifference to making restitution. The board also agreed that no mitigating factors are present.

Turning to the issue of an appropriate sanction, the board determined that respondent’s misconduct in this matter warrants disbarment. However, the board noted that most of the misconduct occurred before or in the same time frame as the misconduct at issue in Smith II. Accordingly, citing Chatelain, the board recommended that respondent be adjudged guilty of additional violations warranting disbarment, to be considered if he should ever apply for readmission. Additionally, the board recommended that respondent be ordered to make restitution and/or provide accountings to his victims. Finally, the board recommended that respondent be assessed with all costs and expenses of these proceedings.

Neither respondent nor the ODC filed an objection to the disciplinary board’s recommendation.

DISCUSSION

The deemed admitted facts in this case establish that respondent has violated numerous provisions of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Therefore, the sole issue presented for our consideration is the appropriate sanction for respondent’s misconduct.

In determining a sanction, we are mindful that disciplinary proceedings are designed to maintain high standards of conduct, protect the public, preserve the ^integrity of the profession, and deter future misconduct. Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Reis, 513 So.2d 1173 (La.1987). The discipline to be imposed depends upon the facts of each case and the seriousness of the offenses involved, considered in light of any aggravating and mitigating circumstances. Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Whittington, 459 So.2d 520 (La.1984).

As the disciplinary board observed, the substantive misconduct at issue in this case occurred before or in the same time frame as the misconduct forming the basis of respondent’s disbarment in Smith II. In Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Chatelain, 573 So.2d 470 (La.1991), we observed that when the underlying conduct occurs within the same period as the misconduct forming the basis of a previous disbarment, the discipline imposed should be determined as if both proceedings were before the court simultaneously. Applying this procedure in Chatelain, we declined to extend the minimum period for readmission. Instead, we adjudged the respondent guilty of additional violations warranting disbarment which were added to his record for consideration in the event he applied for readmission after becoming eligible to do so. See also In re: Patrick, 01-1419 (La.3/15/02), 815 So.2d 804; In re: Gros, 98-0772 (La.3/15/02), 815 So.2d 799; In re: Parker, 00-3532 (La.3/15/02), 815 So.2d 794.

In determining an appropriate sanction in the instant case, we believe the approach of Chatelain is instructive. Accordingly, our determination of a sanction will be based upon the appropriate sanction we would have imposed if these charges had been before the court at the same time as the charges in respondent’s previous disciplinary proceeding.

Had the instant charges been filed simultaneously with those charges forming the basis of respondent’s earlier disbarment, they would have only reinforced our view that respondent lacks the moral fitness , to practice law and must be disbarred, both as 19a sanction for his misconduct and to protect the public. Therefore, as in Chatelain, we will adjudge respondent guilty of additional violations which warrant disbarment and which will be added to his record for consideration in the event he applies for readmission after becoming eligible to do so. We further emphasize that although respondent may have a procedural right to apply for readmission, this court retains absolute discretion to grant or deny such an application. In light of respondent’s lengthy history of egregious misconduct, this court will carefully scrutinize any application for readmission with a critical eye. ■

DECREE

Upon review of the findings and recommendations of the hearing committee and disciplinary board, and considering the record, it is ordered that Willie Fred Smith be adjudged guilty of additional violations which warrant -disbarment and which may be considered in the event he applies for readmission from his' disbarment in In re: Smith, 02-1109 (La.6/21/02), 821 So.2d 1286, after becoming eligible to do so. It is further ordered that respondent shall pay restitution and/or provide accountings to his victims. All costs and expenses in the matter are assessed against respondent in accordance with Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 10.1, with legal interest to commence thirty days from the date of finality of this court’s judgment until paid.

      . Respondent agreed to represent Mr. Johnson on a contingency fee basis but failed to negotiate a written contingency fee contract with Mr. Johnson.

      . Ms. Futrell indicated in her original complaint that respondent had closed his office, turned off his phone, closed his post office box, and had no contact with her regarding the progress of her case.

      . Respondent filed nothing for the hearing committee's consideration.


author: | .PER CURIAM.

text:
    In re Kathryn LIUZZA and Henrietta Kirby.
    No. 2004-C-1138.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 24, 2004.
   | .PER CURIAM.

A long-time employee of the Department of Environmental Quality, Kathryn Liuzza, was working for the Office of Environmental Services Permits Division in 2001 when she discussed the hiring of schoolteachers for the summer months on a temporary, 90-day restricted appointment, to help with an employee shortage in the support services section. She mentioned to her supervisor that she knew a teacher in need of a summer job. Whether she made it clear that this teacher was her sister was a disputed issue. Her immediate supervisor agreed to the temporary employee hiring plan and told Ms. Liuzza to proceed with the paperwork for the new hires.

Ms. Liuzza listed her sister’s name on a memorandum as the replacement employee who was to fill an upcoming vacancy. Her supervisor signed the form and Ms. Liuzza initialed it. Her sister began work at DEQ on a 90-day restricted appointment. The sister’s employment with DEQ was terminated the following day due to a perceived ethical violation.

By majority vote, the Board of Ethics concluded that Ms. Liuzza had violated LSA-R.S. 42:1112(B)(1) by participating in the hiring of her sister and LSA-R.S. 42:1119(A) by virtue of the employment of her sister in her agency while she served as the agency head.

| pThe court of appeal found the Board correctly concluded that Ms. Liuzza “participated” in the selection of her sister for a temporary position when she advised her supervisor that she knew of a teacher who needed a temporary job. She also took part in the hiring of her sister when she supplied the application for employment to her sister and completed the paperwork.

The court of appeal noted the Board did not impose the maximum fine allowed by law ($10,000.00), but rather imposed a $500.00 fine for each violation, suspending one $500.00 fine upon her compliance with the Ethics Code. The court noted that the sister’s employment was terminated the day after she began the job and Ms. Liuz-za was not the only person involved in the process that led to the hiring of her sister. The court of appeal concluded the fine imposed by the Board of Ethics was unduly harsh and the Board abused its discretion in not suspending both fines which were imposed for technical violations. The court of appeal amended the Board’s order to reflect that all fines be suspended upon the condition Ms. Liuzza comply with the Ethics Code in the future.

Not finding an abuse of discretion, Judge Guidry dissented from the portion of the opinion that amended the Board’s order. Judge Guidry stated: “[f]or the appellate court to substitute its judgment for that of the Board in this manner is, in essence, an abuse of our role as a reviewing court.”

We agree with Judge Guidry’s dissent. The fines imposed by the Board of Ethics were not shown to be an abuse of discretion and the court of appeal erred in substituting its judgment for that of the Board. The court of appeal majority erred in amending the order of the Board of Ethics to suspend all of the fines imposed for the proven ethical violations upon the condition that Ms. Liuzza comply with the Ethics Code in the future.

| oDECREE

The judgment of the court of appeal amending the order of the Board of Ethics is reversed and the fines imposed by the Board of Ethics in this matter are reinstated.

CALOGERO, C.J., would deny the writ.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Louis KELLER, et al.
    No. 2004-KK-2255.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 3, 2004.
   In re Keller, Louis III;—Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. E, No. 444-901; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2004-K-1538.

Denied.

CALOGERO, C.J., would grant the writ and reinstate the judgment of the trial court.

JOHNSON, J., would grant the writ and reinstate the judgment of the trial court.

WEIMER, J., would grant the writ and reinstate the judgment of the trial court.


text:
    Doris Esler PORTER, et al. v. Harold R. YORK, M.D., et al.
    No. 2004-CC-2244.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 3, 2004.
   In re York, Harold R. M.D. et al.;—Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. A, Nos. 99-240, 2001-8615; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2004-C-1362.

Denied.


text:
    Roy H. HARRISON, Jr., et al. v. R.R. MORRISON & SON, INC., et al.
    No. 2004-CC-2258.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 7, 2004.
   In re Cagle Brothers C & J Pump Service Inc.;—Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Ouachita, 4th Judicial District Court Div. I, No. 00-1947-H; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 39257-CW.

Denied.


text:
    Huey P. DEAN v. Lurry D. CREW, et al.
    No. 2004-OC-2311.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 22, 2004.
   In re Crew, Lurry D.;—Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Claiborne, 2nd Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 36397; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 39,408-CA.

Not considered; not timely filed. See La. R.S. 18:1409(G). Judgment is final and definitive.


text:
    In re E. Eric GUIRARD & Thomas R. Pittenger.
    No. 2004-OB-2341.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 22, 2004.
   In re Guirard, E. Eric et al.; Pittenger, Thomas R.;—Plaintiff(s); Applying for Writ of Certiorari (Motion to Recuse Hearing Committee Member) Office of Disciplinary Counsel, No. 04-DB-005.

Granted. The requested recusal is granted.

KIMBALL, J., would deny the writ.

VICTORY, J., would deny the writ.

TRAYLOR, J., would deny the writ.


text:
    John HEBERT and Klea Hebert v. RAPIDES PARISH POLICE JURY, et al.
    No. 2004-CC-2354.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 23, 2004.
   In re Transportation & Development Dept. of; Louisiana State of;—Defendant(s); Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Rapides, 9th Judicial District Court Div. F, No. 184,823; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CW 04-01273.

Stay denied. Writ denied.

TRAYLOR, J., would deny the writ on the showing made.


text:
    Christina TORREJON, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Joseph Torrejon v. MOBIL OIL COMPANY, Individually and as Successor to Socony Vacuum Oil Company and Socony Mobil Oil Company; Babcock & Wilcox Company; Combustion Engineering, Inc.; The Flintkote Company; Foster Wheeler Corporation; Garlock Inc.; et al.
    No. 2004-C-1660.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 24, 2004.
   In re Mobil Oil Company, et al.;—Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. B, No. 95-8284; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2003-CA-1426.

Denied.

TRAYLOR, J., would grant the writ.


text:
    Geraldine J. DOUGLAS and Emili Jackson Individually and as the Natural Tutrix of her Minor Child, Travion Jackson v. SHABUBA, INC. d/b/a Queen Mama Food, Frito-Lay, Inc., and Moak Petroleum Products, Inc.
    No. 2004-C-1449.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 24, 2004.
   In re Douglas, Geraldine J. et al.; Jackson, Emili;—Plaintiff(s); Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Madison, 6th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 0206; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 38,260-CA.

Denied.


text:
    In re ACCOUNT REVIEW PANEL FOR the CLAIM of Fred H. FENN, Jr. and David M. Neher as Trustees for Commercial Capital Holding Corporation Employee Stock Ownership Plan v. POSTLETHWAITE AND NETTERVILLE A PROFESSIONAL ACCOUNT CORPORATION.
    No. 2004-C-1445.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 24, 2004.
   In re Fenn, Fred H. Jr. et al.; Neher, David M.;—Plaintiff(s); Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. M, No. 496,643; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2003 CA 1298.

Denied.


text:
    Winafred SCARBROUGH, Individually and as Natural and Legal Tutrix of the Estate of her Minor Son, Eric Scarbrough, Leneka Scarbrough and Jarmonica Scarbrough v. O.K. GUARD DOGS, Oree K. Knighten, Jr., Government Employees Insurance Company and ABC Insurance Company. Dwayne Forkner, Individually and as Father of Eric Scarbrough v. O.K. Guard Dogs, Oree K. Knighten, Jr. and Government Employees Insurance Company.
    No. 2004-C-1440.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 24, 2004.
   In re East Baton Rouge Parish; Baton Rouge City of;—Defendant(s); Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. D, Nos. 395,049, 396,473; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No(s). 2003 CA 1243, 2003 CA 1244.

Denied.

VICTORY, J., would grant the writ.


text:
    Arvind SHAH, Husband of/and Ranjan Shah v. JEFFERSON PARISH HOSPITAL DISTRICT NO. 2 PARISH OF JEFFERSON, State of Louisiana d/b/a East Jefferson General Hospital, Dr. Richard Deno, Dr. Richard H. Tupler of the Radiology Department of East Jefferson General Hospital, and American Continental Insurance Company.
    No. 2004-C-1390.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 24, 2004.
   In re Shah, Arvind et al.; Shah, Ranjan;—Plaintiff(s); Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. K, No. 565-551; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 03-CA-1465.

Denied.

CALOGERO, C.J., would grant the writ.

JOHNSON, J., would grant the writ.


text:
    Michelle CRUTCHFIELD, Individually, and on Behalf of Baby Crutchfield, as Well as the Estate of Samuel Crutchfield, Kathey Dread, on Behalf of Aaron Thomas Dread, Minor Son of Samuel Crutchfield v. Derek LANDRY, Tracy Carlton, the Estate of Melvin Landry, Midland Risk Insurance Company, USF & G Insurance Company, Holiday Inn, Inc., ABC Insurance Company and DEF Insurance Company.
    No. 2004-C-1295.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 24, 2004.
   In re Crutchfield, Michelle et al.; Crutchfield, Samuel Estate of; Dread, Kathey;—Plaintiff(s); Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. D, No. 98-12963; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2003-CA-0969.

Denied.


text:
    Leah F. VERDIN, Individually and on Behalf of her Deceased Husband, Randall Verdin, and Jeff Verdin v. Slade A. ROGERS and Louisiana Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company, Gertrude Gardner, Incorporated, ABC Inspection Co., and the ABC Insurance Co.
    No. 2004-C-1231.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 24, 2004.
   In re Verdin, Leah F. et al.; Verdin, Jeff;—Plaintiff(s); Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. G, No. 590-718; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 03-CA-1457.

Denied.


text:
    HASPEL & DAVIS MILLING & PLANTING CO., LTD., Jean Mayer Connell, Joseh Jean Torre, Sr., Bohemia Planting Co., Inc., Leonie Davis Rothschild, and Arthur Q. Davis, for Themselves and on Behalf of all Others Similarly Situated v. BOARD OF LEVEE COMMISSIONERS OF THE ORLEANS LEVEE DISTRICT.
    No. 2004-C-1234.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 24, 2004.
   In re Morris, William Wall;—Plaintiff; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Plaquemines, 25th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 31-357; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2003-CA-1136.

Not considered; not timely filed.


text:
    DENHAM SPRINGS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT v. ALL TAXPAYERS, PROPERTY OWNERS AND CITIZENS OF the DENHAM SPRINGS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT, and Nonresidents Owning Property or Subject to Taxation Therein, and all Other Persons Interested in or Affected in any Way by the Issuance of Not to Exceed $50,000,000 Denham Springs Economic Development District Sales Tax Increment Bonds (Bass Pro Shops Project) in One or More Series, the Means Provided for the Payment and Security Thereof and Related Matters.
    No. 2004-C-1674.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 24, 2004.
   In re Jones, A. Ponder;—Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Livingston, 21st Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 103,565; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2004 CA 1013.

Granted.


text:
    Brenda STEVENS, Individually and as the Administrator of the Estate of her Minor Child, Joshua Stevens v. CONOCO PHILLIPS COMPANY, et al.
    No. 2004-CC-2181.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 24, 2004.
   In re Conoco Phillips Company et al.; Stiers, Fred; Gott, John; Louisiana Gas Systems Inc.;—Defendant(s); Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Calcasieu, 14th Judicial District Court Div. G, No. 2003-3061; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 04-01073.

Denied.


text:
    Gail BURNEY, Individually and as Executrix and Administratrix of the Estate of Nelson Burney, Sr. v. Bradley BUTEAU and XYZ Insurance Company.
    No. 2004-C-1486.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 24, 2004.
   In re Burney, Gail et al.;—Plaintiff; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of St. Mary, 16th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 106,968; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2003 CA 1440.

Denied.

JOHNSON, J., would grant the writ.


text:
    Michael PETRANICK and his Wife, Karen Loup Petranick v. WHITE CONSOLIDATED INDUSTRIES, Karl S. Steimle and Reliance National Indemnity Company.
    No. 2004-C-1487.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 24, 2004.
   In re University Healthcare Systems, L.L.C. a/k/a; Tulane Medical Center;—Other(s); Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 540-682; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 03-CA-1424.

Denied.


text:
    Michael PETRANICK and his Wife, Karen Loup Petranick v. WHITE CONSOLIDATED INDUSTRIES, Karl S. Steimle and Reliance National Indemnity Company.
    No. 2004-C-1461.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 24, 2004.
   In re Petranick, Michael et al.; Petranick, Karen Loup;—Plaintiff(s); Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 540-682; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 03-CA-1424.

Denied.


text:
    Michael PETRANICK and his Wife, Karen Loup Petranick v. WHITE CONSOLIDATED INDUSTRIES, Karl S. Steimle and Reliance National Indemnity Company.
    No. 2004-C-1444.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 24, 2004.
   In re White Consolidated Industries et al.; Steimle, Karl S.;—Defendant(s); Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 540-682; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 03-CA-1424.

Denied.


text:
    John LOFORTE and Arnold York v. WAYNE ESTAY SHRIMP CO., INC. and Audubon Insurance Company.
    No. 2004-C-1456.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 24, 2004.
   In re Wayne Estay Shrimp Co., Inc.; Audubon Insurance Company;—Defendant(s); Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 84-526; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 03-CA-1367.

Denied. May reraise. The issue may be reraised on appeal in the event of an adverse judgment.

TRAYLOR, J., would grant the writ.

WEIMER, J., would grant the writ.


text:
    CARTER & SONS PLUMBING & HEATING CO., INC. v. BAHA TOWERS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP IN COMMENDAM, and Triune Construction Services, Inc.
    No. 2004-C-1446.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 24, 2004.
   In re Baha Towers Limited Partnership In Commendam; — Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. A, No. 97-00167; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2003-CA-1661.

Denied.


text:
    ANGELO IAFRATE CONSTRUCTION, L.L.C. and Edward L. Leonard v. STATE of Louisiana Through the DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND DEVELOPMENT.
    No. 2004-C-1442.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 24, 2004.
   In re International Union of Operating Engineers Local 406;—Other; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. F, No. 497,844; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2003 CA 0892.

Denied.

CALOGERO, C.J., would grant the writ.


text:
    UNION ANTIOCH BAPTIST CHURCH, INC. v. Charles E. WELLS, Franklin L. Lassiter, the Wells Group, Inc., F.L. Lassiter & Associates, Inc. and the Lassiter and Wells JVA.
    No. 2004-CC-1427.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 24, 2004.
   In re Lafayette Insurance Company;—Other; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. J, No. 479,579; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2004 CW 0228.

Denied.


text:
    J. Ray THOMAS v. SISTERS OF CHARITY OF the INCARNATE WORD d/b/a Schumpert Medical Center and XYZ Insurance Company.
    No. 2004-C-1403.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 24, 2004.
   In re Sisters of Charity of the Incarnate Word d/b/a; Schumbert Medical Center;—Defendant(s); Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 382,296; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 38,170-CA.

Denied.

VICTORY, J., would grant the writ.


text:
    In re MEDICAL REVIEW PANEL FOR the CLAIM OF Gertrude YOUNG v. BERNICE COMMUNITY REHABILITATION HOSPITAL, et al.
    No. 2004-C-1402.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 24, 2004.
   In re Bernice Community Rehab. Hospital L.L.C. et al.; Columbia Casualty Co.;—Defendant(s); Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Webster, 26th Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 60,495-E; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 38,402-CA.

Denied.

VICTORY, J., would grant the writ.

TRAYLOR, J., would grant the writ.


text:
    Des R. MOTHE and Elizabeth T. Mothe v. ESP COMPANY and Prime Time Pools, Gibbens Pools by Ducote General Contractors, Inc.
    No. 2004-CC-1389.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 24, 2004.
   In re ESP Company et al.; Prime Time Pools;—Defendant(s); Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. L, No. 591-642; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 04-C-497.

Denied.


text:
    Ferdinand F. VALTEAU Jr., Barbara H. Valteau, Blaire A. Valteau and Ferdinand F. Valteau III v. MELLON MORTGAGE COMPANY.
    No. 2004-OC-1328.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 24, 2004.
   In re Valteau, Ferdinand Jr. et al.; Valteau, Barbara H.; Valteau, Blaire A.; Valteau, Ferdinand III; — Plaintiff(s); Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. A, No. 2000-11269; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No(s). 2003-CA-2056, 2003-CA-2057.

Denied.


text:
    METRO RIVERBOAT ASSOCIATES, INC. and Norbert Simmons v. Thomas W. TUCKER.
    No. 2004-OC-1296.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 24, 2004.
   In re Tucker, Thomas W.;—Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. M, No. 2002-7230; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2002-CA-1778.

Denied.


text:
    ST. CHARLES PARISH HOSPITAL SERVICE DISTRICT NO. 1 d/b/a St. Charles Parish Hospital v. OCHSNER HEALTH PLAN, INC.
    No. 2004-C-1279.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 24, 2004.
   In re St. Charles Parish Hospital Service Dist. No. 1 d/b/a; St. Charles Parish Hospital;—Plaintiff(s); Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of St. Charles, 29th Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 58,188; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 03-CA-1475.

Denied.


text:
    Germain CRAFT, Individually and on Behalf of Minor Child, Oriana Craft and Kendrick Craft v. SEWERAGE AND WATER BOARD OF NEW ORLEANS and Boh Bros. Construction Co., L.L.C.
    No. 2004-C-1276.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 24, 2004.
   In re Sewerage & Water Board of New Orleans;—Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. I, No. 99-6562; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2003-CA-1886.

Denied.


text:
    Bernice Wadsworth HINES and Wendi Wadsworth v. Charles GARRETT, Onebecon Insurance Co. and American Central Insurance Co.
    No. 2004-C-0806.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 24, 2004.
   In re Garrett, Charles, Applying for Rehearing of this Court’s order dated June 25, 2004; Parish of Red River, 39th Judicial District Court Div. 0, No. 32,617 F; to the Second Circuit Court of Appeal, No. 38,013-CA.

Rehearing denied.


text:
    Gary L. RING, et al. v. STATE of Louisiana, et al.
    No. 2004-CC-2274.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 24, 2004.
   In re Ring, Gary L. et al.;—Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. J, No. 481-767; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2004 CW 0543.

Denied.


text:
    Shahaid Iqbal ABBASI v. STATE FARM INSURANCE COMPANY, Shane Jackson and Shannon Ramirez.
    No. 2004-C-2076.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 24, 2004.
   In re State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company et al.; Ramirez, Shannon;—Defendant(s); Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Jefferson, First Parish Court of Jefferson, No. 19-282; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 04-CA-44.

Denied.


text:
    William E. BRADLEY v. Amanda B. BRADLEY.
    No. 2004-CC-2097.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 24, 2004.
   In re Bradley, William E.;—Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Tangipahoa, 21st Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 2002-003560; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2004 CW 1226.

Denied.


text:
    Jimmy VALMONT v. CONOCO PHILLIPS COMPANY, et al.
    No. 2004-CC-2180.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 24, 2004.
   In re Conoco Phillips Company et al.; Stiers, Fred; Gott, John; Louisiana Gas Systems Inc.;— Defendant(s); Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Calcasieu, 14th Judicial District Court Div. F, No. 2003-6343; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CW 04-00986.

Denied.


text:
    Christopher M. PARKER, et ux. v. LAMAR AND/OR LAMAR ADVERTISING, et al.
    No. 2004-CC-1889.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 24, 2004.
   In re Parker, Christopher et al.;—Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Acadia, 15th Judicial District Court Div. I, Nos. 78,688, 78,704; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No(s). CW 04-00251, CW 04-00252.

Denied.

CALOGERO, C.J., would grant the writ.

JOHNSON, J., would grant the writ.

WEIMER, J., would grant the writ.


text:
    J. Robert WOOLEY, as Commissioner of Insurance for the State of Louisiana v. PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS, LLP.
    No. 2004-CC-1832.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 24, 2004.
   In re PriceWaterhouseCoopers, LLP;—Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. 0, No. 499,737; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2004 CW 1104.

Denied.


text:
    Shane Michael JOHNSON v. FELICIANA FORENSIC FACILITY, et al.
    No. 2004-C-1469.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 24, 2004.
   In re Johnson, Shane Michael;—Plaintiff; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Ouachita, 4th Judicial District Court Div. I, No. 980426; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 37,-921-CA.

Denied.


text:
    PARKLAND INVESTMENTS, L.L.C. v. STATE of Louisiana, Through DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND DEVELOPMENT.
    No. 2004-CC-1475.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 24, 2004.
   In re Parkland Investments, L.L.C.;—Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. N, No. 505,382; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2003 CW 2878.

Denied.


text:
    JACKSON & PLACKE, et al. v. James A. NORRIS, Jr.
    No. 2004-CC-1478.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 24, 2004.
   In re Johnson & Placke, et al.;—Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Ouachita, 4th Judicial District Court Div. G, No. 89-3574; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 38,300-CW.

Denied.


text:
    Timothy MILLER, et ux. v. AMERICAN MOTORISTS INS. CO., et al.
    No. 2004-C-1480.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 24, 2004.
   In re Brookshire Grocery Company;—Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiora-ri and/or Review, Parish of Rapides, Pineville City Court, Nos. 01-320, 01-330,; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No(s). CA 03-1708, CA 03-1709.

Denied.


text:
    RISK MANAGEMENT SERVICES v. Brandon ASHLEY. Brandon Ashley v. Ashley’s Floor Service and Risk Management Services.
    No. 2004-C-1481.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 24, 2004.
   In re Risk Management Services;—Plaintiff; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review Office of Workers’ Compensation District 1W, Nos. 02-02801, 02-08379,; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No(s). 38,431-CA, 38,432-CA.

Denied.

TRAYLOR, J., would grant the writ.


text:
    Austin Lamar DOZIER v. TRANSOCEAN OFFSHORE USA, INC. and Frank’s Casing Crew and Rental Tools, Inc.
    No. 2004-C-1483.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 24, 2004.
   In re Transocean Offshore USA, Inc.;—Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of St. Mary, 16th Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 104,844; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2003 CA 1386.

Denied.


text:
    Bruce TRIM v. REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY, Charlie Armstrong and ABC Insurance Company.
    No. 2004-C-1463.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 24, 2004.
   In re Trim, Bruce;—Plaintiff; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. B, No. 98-20051; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2003-CA-0561.

Denied.


text:
    Ruby M. BERTHELOT v. PROGRESSIVE INSURANCE COMPANY, et al.
    No. 2004-CC-1457.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 24, 2004.
   In re Progressive Insurance Company, et al.; Lewis Coaches, Inc.;—Defendant(s); Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. I, No. 95-06416; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2004-C-0571.

Denied.

VICTORY, J., would grant the writ.


text:
    Calvin J. LEONARD, Jr. v. JAMES INDUSTRIAL CONSTRUCTORS.
    No. 2004-C-1447.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 24, 2004.
   In re James Industrial' Constructors;—Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review Office of Workers’ Comp. Dist. 5, No. 99-05280; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2003 CA 0040.

Denied.

VICTORY, J., would grant the writ.

TRAYLOR, J., would grant the writ.


text:
    Sean Joseph SIMON v. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF the PORT OF NEW ORLEANS, et al.
    No. 2004-CC-1443.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 24, 2004.
   In re Simon, Sean Joseph;—Plaintiff; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Civil District .Court Div. A, No. 2001-20048; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2004-C-0368.

Denied.


text:
    Zane AMES, et al. v. CHEROKEE NATIONAL LIFE INS. CO.
    No. 2004-C-1428.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 24, 2004.
   In re Ames, Zane et al.; Knapp, Tayna Ames; McCaughey, Feleena Ames;—Plaintiff(s); Applying for Writ of Certiora-ri and/or Review, Parish of Concordia, 7th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 38250; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CA 03-1736.

Denied.


text:
    Debra SENSLEY v. GLENWOOB REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER & Dr. Charles Hand.
    No. 2004-C-1429.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 24, 2004.
   In re Sensley, Debra;—Plaintiff; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Ouachita, 4th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 98-5174; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 38,519-CA.

Denied.

JOHNSON, J., would grant the writ.


text:
    Nolan BENSON, Sr. and Borrell’s Inc. v. CITY OF MARKSVILLE, et al.
    No. 2004-C-1430.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 24, 2004.
   In re Marksville City of et al.;—Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Avoyelles, 12th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 99-6595; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 03-1776.

Denied.

KNOLL, J., recused.


text:
    Harold ENGLES and Alicia Engles v. CITY OF NEW ORLEANS and the Sewerage and Water Board.
    No. 2004-C-1432.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 24, 2004.
   In re New Orleans, City of et al.;—Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. N, No. 1998-21448; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2003-CA-0692.

Denied.


text:
    Laura PELETZ v. STATE of Louisiana, et al.
    No. 2004-CP-1436.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 24, 2004.
   In re Peletz, Laura;—Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 486,121; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2004 CW 0125.

Denied.


text:
    Darian DARTY v. TRANSOCEAN OFFSHORE U.S.A., INC. and Bay Coquille, Inc.
    No. 2004-C-1437.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 24, 2004.
   In re Bay Coquille Inc.;—Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Plaquemines, 25th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 48-942; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2003-CA-1669.

Denied.


text:
    Samuel CHESNE v. ELEVATED TANK APPLICATORS, INC.
    No. 2004-C-1439.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 24, 2004.
   In re Chesne, Samuel;—Plaintiff; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review Office of Workers’ Compensation Dist.-#2, No. 01-07975; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 04-46.

Denied.


text:
    Vickie EASTERLING, et al. v. CHRISTOPHER CROSS, INC., et al.
    No. 2004-CC-1406.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 24, 2004.
   In re Easterling, Vickie et al.;—Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. C, No. 00-6960; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2004-C-0599.

Denied.


text:
    Grant S. RENO v. SCAFCO, L.L.C., et al.
    No. 2004-C-1419.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 24, 2004.
   In re Reno, Grant S.;—Plaintiff; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Calcasieu, 14th Judicial District Court Div. G, No. 96-3317; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 03-1232.

Denied.


text:
    George HOOKER, Jr. v. WAL-MART STORES, INC.
    No. 2004-C-1420.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 24, 2004.
   In re Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.;—Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Ouachita, 4th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 02-4473; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 38,350-CA.

Denied.

TRAYLOR, J., would grant the writ.


text:
    AMERICAN CENTRAL INSURANCE CO. v. BOUCHER & SLACK INSURANCE AGENCY, et al.
    No. 2004-C-1405.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 24, 2004.
   In re Boucher & Slack Ins. Agency et al.; Employers Reinsurance Co.;—Defendant(s); Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Webster, 26th Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 58,075; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 38,310-CA.

Denied.


text:
    Herbert and Mary A. ROBIN v. ALLSTATE INS. CO.
    No. 2004-C-1383.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 24, 2004.
   In re Robin, Herbert et al.;—Plaintiff; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of St. Martin, 16th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 63098; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No(s). 03-1009, 03-0926.

Denied.


text:
    John HALL v. BUQUET AND LEBLANC, INC. and Zurich American Insurance Company.
    No. 2004-C-1358.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 24, 2004.
   In re Hall, John;—Plaintiff; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review Office of Workers’ Comp. Dist. 9, No. 0109275; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 38,212-WCA.

Denied.

JOHNSON, J., would grant the writ.


text:
    TRI-STATE SAND & GRAVEL, L.L.C. v. Sharon Procell COX.
    No. 2004-CC-1357.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 24, 2004.
   In re Cox, Sharon P.;—Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Bossier, 26th Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 110,732; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 38,-217-CA.

Denied.


text:
    James FUTCH v. J.O. “Jim” BAILEY.
    No. 2004-C-1318.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 24, 2004.
   In re Futch, James;—Plaintiff; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review Office of Workers’ Comp. Dist. 1, No. 01-01594; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 38,324-WCA.

Denied.

JOHNSON, J., would grant the writ.


text:
    Lawrence SMITH v. ROY O. MARTIN LUMBER COMPANY.
    No. 2004-C-1311.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 24, 2004.
   In re Roy 0. Martin Lumber Co.;—Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiora-ri and/or Review Office of Workers’ Comp. Dist. 2, No. 02-06738; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 03-1441.

Denied.

VICTORY, J., would grant the writ.

TRAYLOR, J., would grant the writ.


text:
    Janice Damron THAMES v. James Gregory THAMES.
    No. 2004-C-1275.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 24, 2004.
   In re Thames, James Gregory;—Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Pointe Coupee, 18th Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 29,136; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2003 CA 0509.

Denied.


text:
    Mr. and Mrs. Eugene DUCOTE v. NEW HAMPSHIRE INSURANCE COMPANY.
    No. 2004-CC-1258.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 24, 2004.
   In re New Hampshire Insurance Company;—Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. N, No. 598-471; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 04-C-319.

Denied.

VICTORY, J., would grant the writ.

TRAYLOR, J., would grant the writ.


text:
    Nicholas ESTIVERNE v. Louis L. PLOTKIN, et al.
    No. 2004-CC-1261.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 24, 2004.
   In re Plotkin, Louis L. et al.; Louis L. Plotkin APLC; Trahan, Jill; Gertler Gertler Vincent & Plotkin; —Defendant(s); Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. F, No. 02-8480; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2004-C-0381.

Denied.

KNOLL, J., would grant the writ.


text:
    Tandy ARNOLD v. ESSEX INSURANCE COMPANY, et al.
    No. 2004-CC-1226.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 24, 2004.
   In re Essex Insurance Company; Bourbon Nite-Life, L.L.C.;—Defendant(s); Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. M, No. 2001-10484; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2004-C-0497.

Denied.

VICTORY, J., would grant the writ.

TRAYLOR, J., would grant the writ.

WEIMER, J., would grant the writ.


text:
    Justo E. ROQUE, Jr. v. Richard STALDER, et al.
    No. 2003-CI-1768.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 24, 2004.
   In re Roque, Justo E. Jr.;—Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 471,900; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2002 CW 1833.

Denied.


text:
    Kevin SNYDER, et al. v. LAMAR AND/OR LAMAR ADVERTISING, et al.
    No. 2004-CC-2048.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 24, 2004.
   In re Snyder, Kevin et ah; Snyder, Cheryl;—Plaintiff(s); Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Acadia, 15th Judicial District Court Div. I, Nos. 78688-1, 78,704; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No(s). CW 04-00251, CW 04-00252.

Not considered; not timely filed. See La.Code of Civil Procedure art. 2166(D).


text:
    Travis COOPER, et al. v. LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS.
    No. 2004-C-1431.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 24, 2004.
   In re Louisiana State of et al.; Transportation and Development Dept, of - (formerly); Public Works Dept, of;—Defendant(s); Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Catahoula, 7th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 18,754; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 03-1074.

Not considered; not timely filed.


text:
    Moses Aaron SAULSBERRY v. Paul M. HAYGOOD.
    No. 2004-C-1422.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 24, 2004.
   In re Saulsberry, Moses Aaron;—Plaintiff; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. C, No. 2003-3705; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2003-CA-1785.

Not considered. Not timely filed. See Supreme Court Rule 10, Sect. 5.


text:
    Thomas REEH v. Joe SHYNE, et al. and Raymond Simmons v. Senator Max Malone, et al.
    No. 2004-OC-1263.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 24, 2004.
   In re Simmons, Raymond;—Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Div. I, No. 469,226, 470,095; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No(s). 38670-CW, 38671-CW.

Writ not considered. Not timely filed.


text:
    Shelley W. WEST v. BRUNER HEALTH GROUP, INC., et al.
    No. 2004-C-0935.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 24, 2004.
   In re Corporate Resource Management, Inc.;—Defendant(s); Applying for Reconsideration of this Court’s action dated June 18, 2004; Parish of Natchitoches, 10th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 72,091; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 03-152.

Reconsideration denied.


text:
    In re MEDICAL REVIEW PANEL FOR the CLAIM OF Robert WATKINS.
    No. 2004-CC-1277.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 24, 2004.
   In re Bernauer, Dale R. Dr.;—Other; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Calcasieu, 14th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 2003-002273; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CW 04-00099.

Denied.


text:
    In re TRAIN CAR FIRE LITIGATION.
    No. 2004-C-1262.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 24, 2004.
   In re Coleman-Polk, Bonnie;—Plaintiff; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. C, No. 87-16374; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2003-CA-1349.

Denied.


text:
    INTERDICTION OF Emily Lori GREENBLATT.
    No. 2004-CC-1482.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 24, 2004.
   In re Greenblatt, Annie Sobel et al.;—Other; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. G, No. 538-686; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 04-C-345.

Writ not considered; not timely filed. A rebuttable presumption of timeliness applies when the writ application is received by mail on the first legal day following the expiration of the delay for filing. La. Sup. Ct. Rule X, Section 5(d). Although Relator asserts the application was placed in a United States Post Office box on June 9, 2004, the last day for filing, the application, which was stamped by postage meter, was not received the first legal day thereafter, Thursday, June 10, 2004, but was instead received in this Court on Monday, June 14, 2004. Thus, the presumption of timeliness does not apply, and Relator has not provided this Court with an official United States postmark or an official receipt or certificate from the United States Postal Service made at the time of mailing which indicates the date thereof. La. Sup.Ct. Rule X, Section 5(d).


text:
    In re JUDICIAL COMMITMENT OF Moses SAULBERRY (Saulsberry).
    No. 2004-OC-1423.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 24, 2004.
   In re Saulberry, Moses A.;—Plaintiff; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. D, No. JC5970; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2003-CA-1536.

Not considered. Not timely filed. See Supreme Court Rule X, Section 5.


text:
    In re Rose M. LAIN.
    No. 2004-OB-1216.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 24, 2004.
   In re Lain, Rose M.;—Plaintiff; Applying for Findings and Recommendations (Reinstatement/Readmission) Office of Disciplinary Board, No. 03-DB-039.

Reinstatement denied. Petitioner may not reapply for reinstatement for at least one year from the date of this judgment. Supreme Court Rule XIX, Section 24(1).


text:
    STATE ex rel. Marion J. BEASON v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2004-KH-1556.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 24, 2004.
   In re Beason, Marion J.;—Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Vernon, 30th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 55964; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 04-00367.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Frederick J. MOORE v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2004-KH-1188.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 24, 2004.
   In re Moore, Frederick J.;—Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 302,281; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2004 KW 0411.

Denied. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8; State ex rel. Glover v. State, 93-2330 (La.9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Toby Delee DAVIS v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2004-KP-0685.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 24, 2004.
   In re Davis, Toby Delee;—Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Livingston, 21st Judicial District Court Div. G, Nos. 081091, 080915; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2003 KW 2584.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Carley PROVOST, II v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2004-KP-0158.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 24, 2004.
   In re Provost, Carley II;—Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Washington, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. G, No. 97-CR8-70720; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2003 KW 2046.

Denied. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8; State ex rel. Glover v. State, 93-2330 (La.9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Jermaine HENDERSON v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2003-KP-3543.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 24, 2004.
   In re Henderson, Jermaine;—Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. G, No. 12-97-481; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2003 KW 2301.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana ex rel. James R. COBB, II v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2003-KP-3263.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 24, 2004.
   In re Cobb, James R. II;—Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 11 — 01— 256; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2003 KW 1421.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. John Lee HARGROVE, III v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2003-KP-3468.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 24, 2004.
   In re Hargrove, John Lee III;—Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. H, No. 3-98-382; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2003 KW 2092.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Steven DUPREE v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2003-KH-2540.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 24, 2004.
   In re Dupree, Steven—Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Natchitoches, 10th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. C 339; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KH 02-01444.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Elton COWART v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2003-KH-2542.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 24, 2004.
   In re Cowart, Elton;—Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 99-5664; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 03-KH-930.

Denied. Moot. The documents custodian has acted.


text:
    STATE ex rel. John Davis COLQUITT v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2003-KH-2544.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 24, 2004.
   In re Colquitt, John D.;—Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Claiborne, 2nd Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 19395; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 38039-KH.

Denied. See State ex rel. Fleury v. State, 93-2898, (La.10/13/95), 661 So.2d 488.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Michael Lewis GROSSIE v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2003-KH-2563.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 24, 2004.
   In re Grossie, Michael Lewis;—Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Rapides, 9th Judicial District Court Div. F, No. 255686; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KH 03-00041.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Depton JONES v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2003-KH-2528.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 24, 2004.
   In re Jones, Depton;—Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 10-99-544; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2003 KW 0775.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Robert GALENTINE v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2003-KH-2530.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 24, 2004.
   In re Galentine, Robert;—Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. G, No. 5-98-442; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2003 KW 1224.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Palma JEFFERSON v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2003-KH-2531.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 24, 2004.
   In re Jefferson, Palma;—Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. G, No. 363-449; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2003-K-1198.

Denied. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8; State ex rel. Glover v. State, 93-2330 (La.9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189.


text:
    STATE ex rel. William COLEMAN v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2003-KH-2533.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 24, 2004.
   In re Coleman, William;—Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. C, No. 420-479; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2002-KA-1000.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Jackie Ray BUSH v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2003-KH-2336.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 24, 2004.
   In re Bush, Jackie R.;—Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Rapides, 9th Judicial District Court Div. G, No. 245274; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KH 03-00232.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Charles FELTON v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2003-KH-2337.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 24, 2004.
   In re Felton, Charles; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. C, No. 291-305; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2003-K-0643.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Herman FRANKLIN v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2003-KH-2391.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 24, 2004.
   In re Franklin, Herman;—Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. F, No. 99-5952; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 03-KH-776.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Nolan SCHOUEST v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2003-KH-2394.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 24, 2004.
   In re Schouest, Nolan;—Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Lafourche, 17th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 62557; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2003 KW 1307.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Titrus L. DAVIS v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2003-KH-2402.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 24, 2004.
   In re Davis, Titrus L.;—Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. N, No. 99-5533; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 03-KH-806.

Denied. State ex rel. Bernard v. Cr.D.C., 94-2247, p. 1 (La.4/28/95), 653 So.2d 1174, 1175.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Frederick MOORE v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2003-KH-2408.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 24, 2004.
   In re Moore, Frederick;—Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 302-281; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 00-KA-1348.

Denied. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8; State ex rel. Glover v. State, 93-2330 (La.9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Patrick MCCLENDON v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2003-KH-2434.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 24, 2004.
   In re McClendon, Patrick;—Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Washington, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. G, No. 93-CR1-54452; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2003 KW 0921.

Denied. The district court has no record of a filing by applicant.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Cevero GARCIA v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2003-KH-2436.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 24, 2004.
   In re Garcia, Cevero;—Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Calcasieu, 14th Judicial District Court Div. G, No. 16063-95; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KH 03-00522.

Denied. Repetitive. See La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4(D).


text:
    STATE ex rel. Roy James JONES v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2003-KH-2441.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 24, 2004.
   In re Jones, Roy J.;—Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Terrebonne, 32nd Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 237835; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2003 KW 1149.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Lawrence JOLLY v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2003-KH-2455.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 24, 2004.
   In re Jolly, Lawrence;—Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. H, No. 91-1089; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 03-KH-567.

Denied. Relator’s claim is repetitive and not cognizable in post-conviction proceedings. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4(A); La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.3; State ex rel. Melinie v. State, 93-1380 (La.1/12/96), 665 So.2d 1172.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Kendrick VOLTER v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2003-KH-2457.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 24, 2004.
   In re Volter, Kendrick;—Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 4-98-276; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2003 KW 1026.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Stanton EASLEY v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2003-KH-2467.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 24, 2004.
   In re Easley, Stanton;—Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Concordia, 7th Judicial District Court Div. B, Nos. 00-818, CO-1233; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KH 03-00493.

Denied. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8; State ex rel. Glover v. State, 93-2330 (La.9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189; State v. Parker, 98-0256 (La.5/8/98), 711 So.2d 694.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Darrell JOHNSON v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2003-KH-2470.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 24, 2004.
   In re Johnson, Darrell;—Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or. Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. C, No. 398-940; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2003-K-1095.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. James COLLUMS v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2003-KH-2471.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 24, 2004.
   In re Collums, James;—Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Livingston, 21st Judicial District Court Div. A, Nos. 15077, 15078; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2003 KW 0792.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Derrick DUNCAN v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2003-KH-2509.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 24, 2004.
   In re Duncan, Derrick;—Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Div. G, No. 205,764; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 37868-KH.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Bobby Ray SAM v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2003-KH-2518.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 24 2004.
   In re Sam, Bobby Ray;—Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. L, Nos. 8-93-1031, 1-95-0813, 4-96-424; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2003 KW 1147.

Denied. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8; State ex rel. Glover v. State, 93-2330 (La.9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189; State v. Parker, 98-0256 (La.5/8/98), 711 So.2d 694.

WEIMER, J., recused.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Charles LAMISON v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2003-KH-2521.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 24, 2004.
   In re Lamison, Charles;—Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. G, No. 285-339.

Denied. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8; State ex rel. Glover v. State, 93-2330 (La.9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189; State v. Parker, 98-0256 (La.5/8/98), 711 So.2d 694.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Patrick WASHINGTON v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2003-KH-2525.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 24, 2004.
   In re Washington, Patrick;—Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Ascension, 23rd Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 9278; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2003 KW 1129.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Eugene RANDOLPH v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2003-KH-3471.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 24, 2004.
   In re Randolph, Eugene;—Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. F, No. 239-166.

Application dismissed at relator’s request.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Ronald J. LETULIER v. Burl CAIN, Warden.
    No. 2003-OK-1883.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 24, 2004.
   In re Letulier, Ronald J., applying for Reconsideration of this Court’s action dated March 19, 2004; Parish of St. Martin, 16th Judicial District Court, Division A, No. 96-170586.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Jerrod A. WILSON v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2003-KH-1859.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 24, 2004.
   In re Jerrod A. Wilson, applying for Reconsideration of this Court’s action dated June 18, 2004, from the Parish of Jefferson Davis, 31st Judicial District Court, Division “O” No. CR1883-96; to the Court of Appeal Third Circuit, No. KH 02-1395.

Reconsideration denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Brandon M. BROUSSARD v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2003-KH-2564.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 24, 2004.
   In re Broussard, Brandon M.;—Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Calcasieu, 14th Judicial District Court Div. B, Nos. 19793-01, 26488-02; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KH 03-00525.

Granted for the sole purpose of transferring the pleading to the district court for enforcement of its order of May 30, 2004 in which it ordered the production of relator’s Boykin and sentencing transcripts, if it has not done so already. The district court is directed to provide this Court with a copy of its ruling.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Joseph Neves MARCAL, III.
    No. 2003-KP-2618.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 24, 2004.
   In re State of Louisiana;—Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. A, No. 283-734.

Writ granted; reversed and remanded. The district court’s judgment of August 18, 2003, granting the motion for amendment/correction of an illegal sentence is reversed. See State v. Reviere, 99-3118 (La.4/7/00), 759 So.2d 79. The case is remanded to the district court for consideration of any remaining post-conviction re-liePhabeas corpus claims, if such claims have not been resolved.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Eugene JARROW.
    No. 2004-KP-0483.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 24, 2004.
   In re State of Louisiana;—Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. E, No. 269-092; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2004-K-0009.

Writ granted; conviction and sentence reinstated. Relator’s filing below, properly considered as an application for post-conviction relief was untimely by a matter of 23 years and should not have been considered on the merits by the district court. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8; State ex rel. Glover v. State, 93-2330 (La.9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Rannell R. CRAIG.
    No. 2004-KO-0142.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 24, 2004.
   In re Craig, Rannell;—Defendant (s); Applying for Reconsideration of this Courts order dated May 21, 2004; Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. D, No. 385-324; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2001-KA-2085.

Reconsideration denied.

JOHNSON, J., would grant the writ.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Harry D. CALAIS.
    No. 2003-KH-2527.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 24, 2004.
   In re Calais, Harry D.;—Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Martin, 16th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 96-147829; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KH 02-01323

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Ryan MALONE.
    No. 2003-KP-2537.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 24, 2004.
   In re Malone, Ryan;—Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. K, No. 02-02432; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2003 KW 0405

Denied.

JOHNSON, J., would grant the writ.

TRAYLOR, J., would grant the writ.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Marion J. BEASON.
    No. 2003-KH-2577.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 24, 2004.
   In re Beason, Marion J.;—Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Vernon, 30th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 55964; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KH 02-1233.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Richard GAMBLE.
    No. 2003-CI-2578.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 24, 2004.
   In re Gamble, Richard;—Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. I, No. 482,341; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2002 CA 2317.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Keltric LOCKETT.
    No. 2003-KP-3490.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 24, 2004.
   In re Lockett, Keltric;—Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of St. Charles, 29th Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 98-0203; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 03-KH-1212.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. John Cassidy MCKOIN.
    No. 2003-KP-3531.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 24, 2004.
   In re McKoin, John Cassidy;—Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Ouachita, 4th Judicial District Court Div. G, No. 97F-1334.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Curtis Ray DAVIS.
    No. 2003-KP-3533.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 24, 2004.
   In re Davis, Curtis Ray;—Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Div. H, No. 151,815; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 38361-KW.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Cassidy MCKOIN.
    No. 2004-KP-0068.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 24, 2004.
   In re McKoin, Cassidy;—Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Ouachita, 4th Judicial District Court Div. G, No. 97-F1334; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 38,-461-KW.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Clarence MAYS.
    No. 2004-KP-0072.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 24, 2004.
   In re Mays, Clarence;—Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. P, No. 99-5507; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 03-KH-1377.

Denied.

CALOGERO, C.J., would grant the writ.

JOHNSON, J., would grant the writ.

KNOLL, J., would grant the writ.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Larry KETCHENS.
    No. 2004-KP-0082.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 24, 2004.
   In re State of Louisiana;—Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. E, No. 318-138; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2003-K-1320.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Bruce C. BETZER.
    No. 2004-KK-0203.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 24, 2004.
   In re Betzer, Bruce C.;—Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Bernard, 34th Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 265-230; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2003-K-1738.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Scott SILVERII.
    No. 2004-KP-0293.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 24, 2004.
   In re Silverii, Scott;—Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Lafourche, Thibodaux City Court, No. 02-92049; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2QQ3 KW 0353.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Josh CHAMPAGNE.
    No. 2004-KP-0294.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 24, 2004.
   In re Champagne, Josh;—Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Lafourche, City Court of Thibodaux, Nos. 02-92045, 02-92047, 02-92049,; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2003 KW 0351.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. John CHAMPAGNE.
    No. 2004-KP-0295.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 24, 2004.
   In re Champagne, John;—Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Lafourche, City Court of Thibodaux, Nos. 02-92045, 02-92047, 02-92049,; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2003 KW 0352.

Denied.