text:
    Blaine STROTHER v. CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY, Southern Food Groups, L.P. d/b/a Foremost Dairy, and Freddie Lynn Fair.
    No. 2006-C-302.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    June 2, 2006.
   PER CURIAM.

hln this suit arising from a vehicular collision, the plaintiffs filed suit against multiple defendants, including Continental Casualty Insurance Company, Southern Foods Group, L.P. d/b/a Foremost Dairy, Dean Foods Product Company, Freddie Lynn Fair and Hollis Mancil d/b/a H & M Motors. In the course of the proceedings, the parties agreed to sever the trial of the plaintiffs’ claims against Hollis Mancil d/b/a H & M Motors (“H & M Motors”) from the other defendants. After a jury trial, the trial court signed a written judgment with regard to the plaintiffs’ claims against all defendants except H & M Motors in conformity with the jury’s verdict on September 30, 2003. Notice of the signing of this judgment was mailed from the clerk of court’s office on October 1, 2003.

The record shows that on October 30, 2003, the defendants other than H & M Motors filed into the record a petition for a suspensive appeal. The trial court had earlier signed an order granting this appeal on October 27, 2003.

Despite their requested appeal, on October 30, 2003, the defendants other than H & M Motors filed a pleading to amend the judgment pursuant to La.Code Civ. P. Art. 1915(B), asking the trial court to sign an amended judgment, incorporating certain amendments alleged to be in accordance with an oral agreement entered into between the parties and the court, and to designate the amended judgment as ap-pealable. On November 10, 2003, the trial court signed an amended judgment | ¿which made four alterations in the original judgment and designated the amended judgment as immediately appealable under La. Code Civ. P. Art. 1915(B). Notice of the signing of the amended judgment was mailed by the clerk of court’s office on November 10, 2003.

On November 19, 2003, the defendants other than H & M Motors filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict as to their liability. On March 8, 2004, the trial court signed a judgment denying the motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. In the interim, on January 29, 2004, the trial court signed a written judgment dismissing the plaintiffs’ claims against H & M Motors due to compromise by these parties.

Plaintiff filed a motion for devolutive appeal on April 14, 2004. The trial court signed an order granting the appeal. The court of appeal, acting sua sponte, issued a rule for the plaintiff to show cause by brief only why his appeal should not be dismissed as untimely. After considering the briefs filed, the court of appeal declared the amended judgment of November 10, 2003 null and void, finding that the trial court’s judgment of September 30, 2003 was an appealable judgment and that the plaintiffs appeal was untimely.

We find that the September 30, 2003 judgment of the trial court was a partial judgment under La.Code Civ. P. Art. 1915(B), and not a final judgment under La.Code Civ. P. Art. 1915(A). Contrary to the court of appeal’s determination, we find that the situation at issue is dissimilar from any of the procedural situations described pin subsection (A). Instead, here a partial judgment was signed on a part of the principal demand against one set of defendants. Thus, these circumstances fit subsection (B)(2), in that a judgment was signed “adjudicating] fewer than all claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties ... ”. With the trial court’s entry of judgment on September 30, 2003, the action was not terminated and the partial judgment did not constitute a final judgment for the purpose of an immediate appeal due to the absence of a designation that it was a final judgment. As such, the judgment could be revised at any time prior to rendition of the judgment adjudicating all the claims and the rights and liabilities of all the parties.

Additionally, we find the court of appeal was incorrect in finding that the amended judgment made substantive changes to the original judgment in violation of La.Code Civ. P. Art. 1951. The changes made were either mistakes in mathematical calculations which the parties agreed were incorrect, were changes in phraseology which effected no actual change in the judgment or any computation in the judgment, or were clarifications of what the original judgment ordered. It is apparent from the record that all of the parties believed the original judgment was a partial, non-final judgment which could be amended. The trial court had the authority to render the amended judgment under La.Code Civ. P. Art. 1951.

As the amended judgment was properly entered on Monday, November 10, 2003, then the motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, filed November 19, 2003 was timely and interrupted the appeal delays. See La. C.C.P. art. 1811(A)(1) (motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict must be filed not later than seven days, exclusive of legal holidays, after the clerk has mailed notice of judgment.). |4The trial court denied the motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict on March 8, 2004. The plaintiff filed a motion for devolutive appeal on April 14, 2004, or within 60 days of the expiration of the delay for applying for a new trial or judgment notwithstanding the verdict from the March 8, 2004 amended judgment. See La. C.C.P. art. 2087(A)(1). Thus, the plaintiffs appeal was timely and should not have been dismissed.

Considering the foregoing, the court of appeal’s judgment declaring as null the trial court’s amended judgment of November 10, 2003, is reversed; the amended judgment of the trial court is reinstated as a final, appealable judgment under La. C.C.P. art. 1915(B); and the plaintiffs appeal is reinstated. This case is remanded to the court of appeal for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

      . On January 6, 2004, the defendants other than H & M Motors filed a motion for leave of court to furnish part of the security for the appeal pursuant to La.Code Civ. P. Art. 5121 and to fix the amount of the suspensive appeal bond. In the March 8, 2004 judgment, the trial court also set the amount of the suspensive appeal bond and permitted the defendants other than H & M Motors to post the bond partially in cash and partially by surety.

      . Although Blaine and Connie Strother were the original plaintiffs, only Blaine Strother pursued an appeal of the trial court judgment.

      . For instance, the original judgment cast Ds with all costs. The amended judgment detailed what those costs were.

      . Tuesday, November 11, 2003, was Veteran’s Day, a legal holiday. Sunday, November 16th, was a legal holiday pursuant to La. R.S. 1:55(A)(1). Thus, November 19th was the seventh day from the mailing of the notice of judgment excluding legal holidays.


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: PER CURIAM.

license: Public Domain

text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. John M. CONNOLLY, III.
    No. 2006-KD-0540.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    June 2, 2006.
   PER CURIAM.

| Relator, John M. Connolly, III, seeks to vacate an order entered sua sponte by the Honorable Charles L. Porter, Judge in the 16th Judicial District Court, Parish of St. Mary, disqualifying himself from further post-conviction proceedings in this capital case. For the reasons that follow, we set aside the order of disqualification, vacate the reallotment of the case to the Honorable Keith Comeaux, and direct Judge Porter to resume presiding over the post-conviction proceedings to their conclusion.

This Court has the benefit of two Per Curiums issued by Judge Porter setting out the reasons why he disqualified himself from the case and confirming in general outline relator’s summary of the proceedings below. The state indicted relator in 1992 for first degree murder in violation of La.R.S. 14:30. He was tried by a jury before the Honorable Michael J. McNulty, Jr., found guilty as charged, and sentenced to death in 1995. This Court affirmed his conviction and sentence | aon appeal. State v. Connolly, 96-1680 (La.7/1/97), 700 So.2d 810. Thereafter, relator initiated post-conviction proceedings in the district court in 1998. By that time, Judge McNulty had retired and the Honorable Edward Leonard, Jr. had replaced him on the bench. However, Judge Leonard had actively participated in the prosecution of relator as an assistant district attorney in the 16th Judicial District. Accordingly, Judge Leonard was recused and the case was realloted to the Honorable Charles L. Porter.

In the course of the next seven years, Judge Porter sat through three changes in post-conviction counsel during which he denied relator’s original application for post-conviction relief, allowed relator to file an amended and supplemental application for post-conviction relief, and thereafter conducted “many evidentiary hearings” encompassing “an extensive list of documentary evidence.” With proceedings just short of a judgment on the merits of relator’s amended and supplemental claims, Judge Porter entered an order on January 19, 2006, recusing himself from the case on grounds that he had been an assistant district attorney in the 16th Judicial District at the time of relator’s indictment, although he had left the District Attorney’s Office and assumed the bench by the time of relator’s trial in 1995.

The case was thereafter randomly real-loted to the Honorable Keith Comeaux. On February 13, 2006, relator Connolly appeared at a status hearing before Judge Comeaux and presented the court with a notice of his intent to seek review of the recusal order entered by Judge Porter and with a motion to stay further proceedings in the ease pending the outcome on review. Judge Comeaux denied a stay and at a second status conference on February 22, 2006, observed for the record that he had been an assistant district attorney in the 16th Judicial 13District, not only at the time of relator’s indictment but also during relator’s trial three years later, and that he had been “heavily involved” in the prosecution of another capital ease in the adjoining parish of St. Martin. Nevertheless, Judge Comeaux stated for the record that he does not consider his prior employment grounds to recuse him from the case and that he intends to proceed subject to the orders of this Court. On relator’s application to this Court contesting Judge Porter’s recusal order and reallotment of the case to Judge Comeaux, we stayed further proceedings below pending review of the merits.

Judge Porter does not indicate when in the course of these extensive post-conviction proceedings he realized that he had been employed as an assistant district attorney at the time of relator’s indictment. He acknowledges that “[t]his court had ample time and opportunity to discover the existence of the ground for recusal,” but also indicates that “this court focused on its status as a trial judge during the defendant’s trial, conviction and sentence.” However the problem came to light, Judge Porter has assured this Court that he did not supervise or participate directly in the prosecution of relator and that he does not “harbor any bias or prejudice against the State or Defendant.” Judge Porter thus determined to recuse himself “out of an abundance of caution ... to avoid any appearance of conflict or impropriety in capital litigation” arising out of his prior association with other assistant district attorneys in the office responsible for prosecuting relator. As explained in his Per Curiums, Judge Porter’s recusal order rests on the provisions of La.C.Cr.P. art. 671(A)(3) which requires recusal of a judge in any case in which he or she “has been associated with an attorney during the latter’s employment in the cause.” As a guide in interpreting the scope of art. 671(A)(3), Judge Porter looked to the decision in State v. Williams, 00-0011 (La.App. 4th Cir.5/9/01), 788 So.2d 516, writ denied, 01-1813 (La.5/10/02), 815 So.2d 832, in which the court of appeal rejected any distinction between an association of government attorneys and lawyers in a private law firm for purposes of art. 671(A)(3) and held that the trial judge erred in failing to recuse herself on grounds of her prior employment as an assistant district attorney at the time prosecution was instituted against defendant. Nevertheless, the court of appeal ultimately concluded that the error was harmless in the absence of any evidence the judge had participated in the prosecution or harbored prejudice against defendant. Williams, 00-0011 at 14-15, 788 So.2d at 527-28.

This Court has the plenary authority to grant a written motion by a trial judge to recuse himself for “any reason that it considers sufficient.” La.C.Cr.P. art. 672. However, as a general matter, a trial judge may recuse himself from a case only when “a ground for recusation exists.” Id.; see Offl Rev. Cm’t (This article “conforms with the generally accepted view that a judge may recuse himself only if there is a valid ground for recusation.”); Hinman v. Rogers, 831 F.2d 937, 939 (10th Cir. 1987)(“There is as much obligation for a judge not to recuse when there is no occasion for him to do so as there is for him to do so when there is.”); In re K.E.M., 89 S.W.3d 814, 819 (Tex.App.2002)(same); see also Louisiana Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 3(C)(unless required by law or by Supreme Court rule, “a judge should not recuse himself or herself.”); ABA Annotated Model Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 3(B)(1)(“A judge shall hear and decide matters assigned to the judge except those in which disqualification is required.”).

A trial judge must step down in any case in which he is “biased, prejudiced or personally interested in the cause to such an extent that he would be unable to conduct a fair and impartial trial.” La. C.Cr.P. art. 671(A)(1); Offl Rev. Cm’t 1 K(“Ground (1) is the most important ground for recusation.... Recognition of bias or prejudice as a ground for recusation is in line with the basic purpose of recusation procedure, i.e., to protect the defendant’s right to a fair and impartial trial.”). A trial judge must also recuse himself even in the absence of a showing of specific bias or prejudice when he “[h]as been employed or consulted as an attorney in the cause, or has been associated with an attorney during the latter’s employment in the cause....” La.C.Cr.P. art. 671(A)(3). A judge must therefore recuse himself from post-conviction proceedings from any ease in which he actively participated in prosecuting the defendant. State ex rel. McKenzie v. State, 99-1657 (La.11/5/99), 750 So.2d 973, 974 (“This district court judge who denied relator’s application for post-conviction relief filed the state’s appellate brief in relator’s appeal in this Court almost twenty years ago.... [T]he judge should have recused himself from post-conviction relief proceedings.”); State ex rel. Truvia v. State, 96-1278 (La.2/6/98), 709 So.2d 723 (“The district court judge who denied relator’s petition for post-conviction relief prosecuted relator for the instant crime over twenty years ago. Although this appears to have been inadvertent, he should have been recused from the post-conviction relief proceeding.”).

However, this Court has not required a trial judge to recuse himself from a case on grounds that he had previously prosecuted the defendant in a prior, unrelated case, and therefore might harbor some bias or prejudice against the defendant for that reason alone. State v. Maduell, 326 So.2d 820, 823 (La.1976); State v. Laborde, 214 La. 644, 38 So.2d 371, 375 (1949); see also State v. Williams, 517 So.2d 1268, 1269 (La.App. 4th Cir.1987); State v. Mills, 505 So.2d 933, 941-42 (La.App. 2d Cir.1987); ABA Annotated Model Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 3(E)(1), Annot. at 220 (“Generally, a judge is not automatically | (¡disqualified from a criminal case where he or she prosecuted the defendant in an earlier, unrelated case.”). Nor has this Court required the disqualification of a judge solely on the basis of his or her coincidental employment in the District Attorney’s Office at the time the defendant was charged in a case over which the judge had no supervision or control before assuming the bench. State v. Bradford, 99-0996 (La.5/14/99), 735 So.2d 619 (La.1999)(setting aside order of recusal of judge employed as an assistant district attorney at the time prosecution was instituted against defendant on grounds that there was “no evidence to support her recusal”). We thus declined to treat assistant district attorneys within the same office as an “association” of lawyers within a law firm for purposes of La.C.Cr.P. art. 671(A)(3). Compare In re Lemoine, 96-0-2116 (La.1/14/97), 686 So.2d 837. The result in Bradford accords with the majority rule in other state jurisdictions that “judges are not disqualified solely on the basis that they were formerly employed by the prosecutor’s office.... [T]he judge to be disqualified must have performed some role in the case or have obtained actual knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts of the case[.]” People v. Julien, 47 P.3d 1194, 1197-98 (Colo.2002)(eollecting cases); State v. Whittey, 149 N.H. 463, 821 A.2d 1086, 1090-91 17(2003)(same)(citing Ju-lien ). Accordingly, a judge must disqualify himself sua sponte or in response to a motion to recuse only “if facts exist tying the judge to personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding, some supervisory role over the attorneys who are prosecuting the case, or some role in the investigation and prosecution of the case during the judge’s former employment.” Julien, 47 P.3d at 1198; but see State ex rel. Corbin v. Superior Court, 155 Ariz. 560, 748 P.2d 1184 (1987) (disqualifying judge who served as an assistant district attorney at the time of the defendant’s prosecution for capital murder from sitting at retrial of sentencing phase although judge had not participated in prosecuting the defendant). A trial judge sitting in post-conviction proceedings is therefore ordinarily not disqualified solely by virtue of his or her prior employment as an assistant district attorney in the office responsible for prosecuting the petitioner. Owens v. State, 13 S.W.3d 742, 757 (Tenn.Crim.App.1999).

Similarly, federal law governing disqualification of judges distinguishes between public service in a governmental agency and private practice of law. Compare 28 U.S.C. § 455(b)(3) (disqualifying a judge who “has served in governmental employment and in such capacity participated as counsel, adviser or material witness concerning the proceeding or expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy.”) with 28 U.S.C. § 455(b)(2) (disqualifying a judge who had “in private practice ... served as lawyer in the matter in controversy, or a lawyer with whom he previously practiced law served during such association as a lawyer concerning the matter, or the judge or such lawyer has been a material witness concerning it.”). Thus, as a matter of federal law, a judge is not required to disqualify himself on grounds of his prior |semployment as a prosecutor unless “the former government attorney has actually participated in some fashion in the proceedings.” Mangum v. Hargett, 67 F.3d 80, 83 (5th Cir.1995); see also United States v. Ruzzano, 247 F.3d 688, 695 (7th Cir.2001)(“As applied to judges who were formerly [Assistant United States Attorneys ], § 455(b)(3) requires some level of actual participation in a case to trigger disqualification.”); ABA Annotated Model Judicial Code, Canon 3(E)(1)(b), Annot. at 231 (“The Commentary makes it clear that a lawyer in a government agency does not ordinarily have an association with other lawyers employed by that agency within the meaning of Section 3(E)(1)(b). Disqualification will only be required if the judge who had previously been in a government agency had ‘served as a lawyer’ in the same or similar proceeding.”).

The general rule against per se disqualification of a trial judge on the basis of his prior coincidental employment in the prosecutor’s office at the time that office filed charges against the defendant rests in part on the recognition that “[mjany trial and appellate judges have spent a portion of their careers working for government agencies; disqualification should be based on bias and prejudice, or the reasonable appearance of partiality, not on technical grounds having to do with prior governmental association.” Julien, 47 P.3d at 1199. The present case underscores that point. Three former assistant district attorneys have presided over this case during nearly eight years of post-conviction proceedings, only one of whom had any direct involvement in relator’s prosecution. While disqualification of Judge Leonard appears to have been proper, recusal of Judge Porter is not required by La.C.Cr.P. art. 671(A)(3) because he did not share Judge Leonard’s direct involvement as an assistant district attorney in relator’s prosecution and otherwise had no supervisory role in the case. Furthermore, Rrecusal of Judge Porter solely on the basis of his prior governmental association would work a particular hardship on relator. Judge Porter acknowledges that extensive evidentiary hearings have been conducted in the present case over the past seven years. According to relator, these proceedings entailed the testimony of some 40 witnesses on a variety of claims asserted in his amended and supplemental application. The case lacks only a judgment on the merits of those claims. Substitution of a new judge at this juncture would risk the relitigation of some or all of the claims previously addressed over the past years and thereby impose a heavy burden on judicial resources in a case in which neither the state nor relator has alleged, let alone substantiated, any prejudice or bias on the part of Judge Porter arising out of his former employment as an assistant district attorney.

Given the absence of any allegations that Judge Porter cannot conduct post-conviction proceedings to their conclusion in a fair and impartial manner, and Judge Porter’s disclaimer of any actual prejudice against either the state or relator and of any direct or supervisory role as a former assistant district attorney in the prosecution of relator, recusal is not required by law in the present case. To the extent that the reasoning in Williams conflicts with the view expressed herein, the decision is expressly disapproved.

ORDER OF RECUSAL AND REAL-LOTMENT OF CASE VACATED; CASE REMANDED.

      . However, the rule is different with respect to Indigent Defender Boards representing multiple defendants with adverse interests in the same proceeding. See State v. McNeal, 593 So.2d 729, 730 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1992)("The mere fact that attorneys representing clients with conflicting interests are employees of the same indigent defender board does not in itself furnish a ground for one of the attorneys to withdraw or for the client to insist upon the appointment of an attorney who is not an employee of the board.”), rev’d 594 So.2d 876 (La.1992)("The motion to withdraw is granted and the case is remanded to the district court for further proceedings.”). Indigent Defender Boards are thus treated as the equivalent of private law firms to effectuate a defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of conflict-free counsel and the ethical obligation of an attorney associated with other lawyers in a firm to avoid representing a client "when any one of them practicing alone would be prohibited from doing so.... ” La. Rules of Professional Responsibility, Rule 1.10(a).


text:
    In re Samuel M. YONTER.
    No. 2005-B-1737.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    June 2, 2006.
   I, ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS

PER CURIAM.

This disciplinary matter arises from formal charges filed by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (“ODC”) against respondent, Samuel M. Yonter, an attorney licensed to practice law in Louisiana, but currently ineligible to practice.

UNDERLYING FACTS

Kathleen Earles and her son, Jerry Rock, III, retained an attorney to represent them in a civil suit against First Lake Properties. After the suit was filed, the plaintiffs’ attorney withdrew from the representation and filed a petition of intervention for her fees and costs. In September 1998, respondent enrolled as the plaintiffs’ counsel of record. In April 1999, respondent settled the civil case for a total of $35,000. The plaintiffs’ prior counsel endorsed the settlement checks with the understanding that respondent would deposit the sum of $20,742 (the amount of funds in dispute) into the registry of the court pending resolution of the intervention. Notwithstanding his commitment to deposit the disputed funds into the registry of the court, respondent instead deposited the disputed funds into his client trust account. Thereafter, the balance of respondent’s trust account frequently dropped below the |2amount of the disputed funds. In May 1999, the trial court granted a motion to dismiss the civil suit with prejudice as between the plaintiffs and First Lake Properties.

On February 24, 2000, acting on the request of the plaintiffs’ former counsel, the trial court held respondent in contempt of court, ordered him to deposit $20,742 into the registry of the court, and ordered him to pay counsel $1,500 in attorney’s fees. The trial court also ordered that the matter be referred to the ODC. Respondent deposited $20,742 into the court registry on March 2, 2000 and paid $1,500 in attorney’s fees to counsel the following day. Shortly thereafter, the intervention was settled and the entirety of the sum in the registry of the court was paid to the plaintiffs’ former counsel. In connection with the settlement, respondent also paid counsel $621.50 in costs.

DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS

Formal Charges

After investigation, the ODC filed two counts of formal charges against respondent, alleging that his conduct violated Rules 1.15(a)(b)(c) (safekeeping property of clients or third persons), 3.2 (failure to make reasonable efforts to expedite litigation), 3.3(a) (candor toward the tribunal), 3.4(c) (knowing disobedience of an obligation under the rules of a tribunal), 8.1(c) (failure to cooperate with the ODC in its investigation), 8.3(a) (failure to report professional misconduct), 8.4(a) (violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct), 8.4(c) (engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), and 8.4(d) (engaging in 1 sconduct prejudicial to the administration of justice) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Respondent was served with the formal charges via certified mail.

Respondent answered the formal charges and acknowledged that he erred in not depositing the disputed funds into the registry of the court after he told his clients’ former counsel that he would do so. However, respondent stated that he was merely complying with the directives of his clients, who had asserted that some of the attorney’s fees and costs claimed by counsel in the intervention were not related to the settled ease. Respondent also pointed out that upon the trial court’s order, he immediately deposited the disputed funds into the registry of the court and paid counsel’s court costs and fees. Finally, concerning the motion to dismiss filed in the civil suit, respondent indicated that the motion, which was prepared and filed by defense counsel, clearly made no attempt to dismiss the pending intervention claim.

Hearing Committee Recommendation

This matter proceeded to a formal hearing on the merits. Despite notice, respondent did not appear at the hearing. After considering the documentary evidence and the testimony of respondent’s clients’ former counsel, the hearing committee found that in April 1999, respondent misrepresented to counsel that he was depositing the disputed funds into the registry of the court. The committee also found that in allowing the civil suit to be dismissed despite the pending intervention, respondent misrepresented to the court that the intervention had been satisfied. Furthermore, the committee determined that during the period of time respondent held the disputed funds in his trust account (from April 1999 to March 2000, when he deposited the funds into the registry of the court), the balance of the trust account regularly dipped below the amount in question.

14Based on these factual findings, the committee determined that respondent violated Rules 1.15(a), 3.3(a), 3.4(c), 8.4(a), and 8.4(c) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Considering the ABA’s Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, the committee concluded the baseline sanction for respondent’s misconduct is disbarment.

In mitigation, the committee recognized that respondent has no prior disciplinary record. As aggravating factors, the committee noted that respondent initially cooperated in the disciplinary process but thereafter failed to do so. The committee also observed that respondent was ineligible to practice law for failing to comply with his professional obligations. Finally, the committee found that respondent had a dishonest or selfish motive and that he did not make restitution until ordered to do so by the trial court.

In determining an appropriate sanction, the committee looked to Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Hinrichs, 486 So.2d 116 (La.1986), which sets forth general guidelines for evaluating disciplinary cases involving conversion and commingling of funds entrusted to a lawyer. The committee acknowledged that this matter does not involve a direct loss to the client as occurred in Hinrichs. However, it observed that there was a possibility that respondent’s clients could have been held liable for the costs and fees due to their first attorney had the intervention not ultimately been satisfied. The committee also determined that respondent made misrepresentations to the court and to counsel about the clients’ money. Under all the circumstances, the committee recommended that respondent be disbarred.

Neither respondent nor the ODC filed an objection to the hearing committee’s recommendation.

IsDisciplinary Board Recommendation

After reviewing the record, the disciplinary board adopted the hearing committee’s factual findings and determined that respondent violated the Rules of Professional Conduct as alleged in the formal charges, with the exception of the failure to cooperate charge, as to which there was no clear and convincing evidence. The board determined that the baseline sanction for respondent’s misconduct is suspension or disbarment according to the ABA’s Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions.

The board found the sole aggravating factor in this case is respondent’s dishonest or selfish motive. As mitigating factors, the board recognized the absence of a prior disciplinary record and the imposition of other penalties or sanctions.

Considering respondent’s misconduct and his failure to cooperate in the underlying disciplinary hearing, the board recommended that respondent be disbarred.

Neither respondent nor the ODC objected to the disciplinary board’s recommendation, but on our own motion, we ordered the parties to submit briefs addressing the issue of an appropriate sanction. Both respondent and the ODC filed briefs in response to the order.

DISCUSSION

Bar disciplinary matters come within the original jurisdiction of this court. La. Const, art. V, § 5(B). Consequently, we act as triers of fact and conduct an independent review of the record to determine whether the alleged misconduct has been proven by clear and convincing evidence. In re: Quaid, 94-1316 (La.11/30/94), 646 So.2d 343; Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Boutall, 597 So.2d 444 (La.1992). While we are not bound in any way by the findings and recommendations of the hearing committee and disciplinary board, we have held the manifest error standard [ fiis applicable to the committee’s factual findings. See In re: Caulfield, 96-1401 (La.11/25/96), 683 So.2d 714; In re: Pardue, 93-2865 (La.3/11/94), 633 So.2d 150.

The record supports the finding that in April 1999, respondent deposited into his client trust account funds in which a third person claimed an interest. Pursuant to respondent’s agreement with his clients’ former counsel, these funds should have been deposited into the registry of the court. However, respondent did not deposit the funds into the registry of the court until March 2000 and only after the trial court ordered him to do so. During the period of time respondent held the disputed funds, the balance of his trust account frequently dropped below the amount in question. We find respondent’s conduct falls below the high standard of care this court requires of attorneys who have control over funds belonging to others.

Having found evidence of professional misconduct, we now turn to a determination of the appropriate sanction for respondent’s actions. 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).

By failing to abide by his agreement to place the disputed funds into the registry of the court, respondent caused his clients’ former, counsel to incur the expense and delay of seeking a court order to this effect. However, any harm in this regard was mitigated by the fact that the trial court ordered respondent to pay counsel’s attorney’s fees in connection with obtaining the order. It is also noteworthy 17that the intervention was ultimately settled to the former counsel’s satisfaction and she obtained ah fees owed to her.

In further mitigation, we find respondent’s actions were not the product of a dishonest or selfish motive, but stemmed from his belief that he was acting in his clients’ best interest. We also find it significant that respondent has no prior disciplinary record during his fifteen-year legal career.

Under the unique facts of this case, we conclude the appropriate sanction for respondent’s misconduct is a suspension from the practice of law for a period of one year and one day, which will necessitate that he make a formal application for reinstatement.

DECREE

Upon review of the findings and recommendations of the hearing committee and disciplinary board, and considering the record and the briefs filed by the parties, it is ordered that Samuel M. Yonter, Louisiana Bar Roll number 20431, be suspended from the practice of law for a period of one year and one day. 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.

       Johnson, J., recused.

      . Respondent has been ineligible to practice law in this state since September 4, 2003 for failing to pay his bar dues and the disciplinary assessment. In a brief filed in this court, respondent represents that he has lived in Missouri since 2001 and that he has no intention of returning to Louisiana.

      . At the contempt hearing, the trial judge explained that she would not have dismissed the civil suit had she known that the intervention was still pending.

      . We emphasize that respondent's belief that he was acting in his clients' best interest in no way excuses his misconduct, but may serve to illuminate his motives for purposes of mitigation.


text:
    Sadie Mae TERRANCE, et al. v. The DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY, et al.
    No. 2006-CC-1540.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    June 19, 2006.
   In re Terrance, Sadie Mae et al.; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 504,016; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2006 CW 1026.

Granted. Ruling of the court of appeal is reversed; ruling of the trial court is reinstated.

VICTORY, J., would deny.


text:
    Roba BRIDGES v. BROOKSHIRE GROCERY COMPANY & Door Control Services, Inc., et al.
    No. 2006-CC-1328.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    June 21, 2006.
   In re Sierra Automatic Doors Inc.;— Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Webster, 26th Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 62,861; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 41369-CW.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Eddie JACKSON.
    No. 2006-KK-1478.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    June 21, 2006.
   In re Jackson, Eddie; — Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. K, No. 459535; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2006-K-0567.

Denied.


text:
    David KNAPPER v. HIBERNIA NATIONAL BANK and Hibernia Corporation.
    No. 2006-CC-1477.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    June 23, 2006.
   In re Hibernia National Bank et al.; Hibernia Corporation; — Defendant(s); Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. A, No. 2002-12170; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2006-C-0639.

Granted. Relator’s notice of intent was filed within thirty days of the trial court’s written judgment. See Kosmitis v. Bailey, 96-1573 (La.10/4/96), 680 So.2d 1167. Although the trial court set the return date more than thirty days from the date of the ruling, the trial court has authority under Rule 4-3 to extend the deadline for filing the application. Barnard v. Barnard, 96-0859 (La.6/24/96), 675 So.2d 734. Accordingly, the application is remanded to the court of appeal for consideration on the merits.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Darren YOUNGBLOOD.
    No. 2006-KH-1163.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    June 23, 2006.
   In re Youngblood, Darren; — Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. M, No. 459271.

Granted for the sole purpose of transferring the filing to the district court for its consideration under La.C.Cr.P. art. 701(F). The district court is directed to provide this Court with a copy of its ruling.


text:
    STATE ex rel. John Lenroy SEARS v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2006-KH-1282.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    June 23, 2006.
   In re Sears, John Lenroy; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. J, No. 453-374.

Granted for the sole purpose of transferring the filing to the district court for its consideration under La.C.Cr.P. art. 701(F). The district court is directed to provide this Court with a copy of its ruling.


text:
    KEVIN ASSOCIATES, LLC v. Brett CRAWFORD, Secretary of the Department of Revenue, State of Louisiana.
    No. 2006-C-0220.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    June 23, 2006.
   In re Louisiana Department of Revenue; — Defendant; Applying for Reconsideration of this Court’s action dated May 5, 2006; Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court, Div. J, No. 460,981; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2004 KA 2227.

Reconsideration not considered. See Rule IX, section 6.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Kelvin WELLS v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2005-KH-0455.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    June 23, 2006.
   In re Wells, Kelvin; — Plaintiff; Applying for Reconsideration of this Court’s action dated January 9, 2006, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court, Div. O, No. 9-01-07; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2004 KW 0851.

Reconsideration denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Michael COMPTON v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2005-KH-0704.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    June 23, 2006.
   In re Compton, Michael; — Plaintiff (s); Applying for Reconsideration of this Courts action dated January 27, 2006; Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. G, No. 99-0809; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 05-KH-93.

Reconsideration denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Douglas H. POLLOCK v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2005-KH-1356.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    June 23, 2006.
   In re Pollock, Douglas H.; — Plaintiff; Applying for Reconsideration of this Court’s action dated February 10, 2006, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court, Div. E, No. 3-01-657; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2004 KW 2509.

Reconsideration denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Fair Wayne BRYANT v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2005-KH-1365.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    June 23, 2006.
   In re Bryant, Fair Wayne; — Plaintiff (s); Applying for Reconsideration of this Courts action dated February 10, 2006; Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Div. H, No. 185,469; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 39765-KH.

Reconsideration denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Clifton G. CONLEY v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2005-KH-1410.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    June 23, 2006.
   In re Conley, Clifton G.;Defendant(S); Applying for Reconsideration of this Court’s order dated February 17, 2006; Parish of Webster, 26th Judicial District Court Div.C, Nos. 61512, 61513; to the Court of Appeal,Second Circuit, No. 39962-KH.

Reconsideration denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Rudolph V. WILLIAMS v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2005-KH-1454.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    June 23, 2006.
   In re Williams, Rudolph V.; — Plaintiff (s); Applying for Reconsideration of this Courts action dated March 10, 2006; Parish of St. Landry, 27th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 98-K-3722; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KH 05-00197.

Reconsideration denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Wayne JOHNSON, II v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2005-KH-1466.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    June 23, 2006.
   In re Johnson, Wayne II; — Plaintiff; Applying for Reconsideration of this Court’s action dated March 20, 2006, Parish Of Ouachita, 4th Judicial District Court, Div. H, No. 98-F0279; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit No. 39986-KH.

Reconsideration denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Keith Lynn BARNES v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2005-KH-1535.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    June 23, 2006.
   In re Barnes, Keith Lynn; — Plaintiff; Applying for Reconsideration of this Court’s action dated March 10, 2006, Parish of Ouachita, 4th Judicial District Court, Div. G, No. 00-F1216; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit No. 38625-KH, 39433-KH and 39787-KH.

Reconsideration denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Jesse CARTER v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2005-KH-1579.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    June 23, 2006.
   In re Carter, Jesse; — Plaintiff; Applying for Reconsideration of this Court’s action dated March 10, 2006; Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court,, Div. G, No. 344-109; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2005-K-0663.

Reconsideration denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Alvin HARVEY v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2005-KH-1727.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    June 23, 2006.
   In re Harvey, Alvin; — Plaintiff; Applying for Reconsideration of this Court’s action dated March 17, 2006; Parish of Cad-do, 1st Judicial District Court Div. G, No. 165,623; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 40,005-KH.

Reconsideration denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Lewis Eugene BROWN v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2005-KH-1942.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    June 23, 2006.
   In re Brown, Lewis Eugene; — Plaintiff; Applying for Reconsideration of this Court’s action dated March 31, 2006; Parish of West Feliciana, 20th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 18,992.

Reconsideration denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Jorge RODRIGUEZ v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2003-KH-1036.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    June 23, 2006.
   In re Rodriguez, Jorge; — Plaintiff; Applying for Motion to Enforce this Court’s order dated June 27, 2003, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. A, No. 287-297.

Motion to Enforce granted. The district court is ordered to comply with this Court’s earlier order, see State ex rel. Rodriguez v. State, 03-1036 (La.6/27/03), 847 So.2d 1265, within thirty days, if it has not done so already. The district court is further ordered to provide this court with proof of compliance.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Eugene TOBIAS v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2006-KH-0098.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    June 23, 2006.
   In re Tobias, Eugene; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. I, No. 286-384; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2005-K-1150.

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. Mitchell BROOKS v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2006-KH-0102.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    June 23, 2006.
   In re Brooks, Mitchell; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. F, No. 401-101; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2005-K-1027.

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. Roy O. MCCLELLAND v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2006-KH-0103.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    June 23, 2006.
   In re McClelland, Roy O.; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 51-035.

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. Ronald Earl WILLIAMS v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2006-KH-0105.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    June 23, 2006.
   In re Williams, Ronald Earl; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Div. G, No. 205,611; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 40631-KH.

Denied. 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. James Dennis ETIENNE v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2006-KH-0106.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    June 23, 2006.
   In re Etienne, James Dennis; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Lafayette, 15th Judicial District Court Div. I, No. 76480; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KH 05-00223.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Quindale ADISON v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2006-KH-0108.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    June 23, 2006.
   In re Adison, Quindale; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. 0, No. 02-6646; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 05-KH-764.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Thomas HAYNES, Jr. v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2006-KH-0113.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    June 23, 2006.
   In re Haynes, Thomas Jr.; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 08-02-772; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2005 KW 1283.

Denied. 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. Jeffery Michael MILLER v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2006-KH-0114.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    June 23, 2006.
   In re Miller, Jeffery Michael; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Div. G, No. 212,336; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 40508-KH.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. David BERGERON v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2006-KH-0115.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    June 23, 2006.
   In re Bergeron, David; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Lafourche, 17th Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 257730; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2005 KW 1406.

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; 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. Ira Joe MIMS v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2006-KH-0116.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    June 23, 2006.
   In re Mims, Ira Joe; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Div. G, No. 129,511 — B; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 40515-KH.

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; 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. Melvin ANDERSON v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2006-KH-0117.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    June 23, 2006.
   In re Anderson, Melvin; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of East Feliciana, Dixon Disciplinary Court, No. DC 1-2004-41; 20th Judicial District Court Div. 0, Nos. 04-CR-434, 04-CR-435; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2005 KW 1465.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Walfrido COLARTE v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2006-KH-0118.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    June 23, 2006.
   In re Colarte, Walfrido; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. F, No. 234,690; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2005 KW 1269.

Denied. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8; State ex rel. Glover v. State, 93-2330 (La.9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189; La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.3; State ex rel. Melinie v. State, 93-1380 (La.1/12/96), 665 So.2d 1172.

WEIMER, J., recused.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Darren D. SHIVERS v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2006-KH-0119.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    June 23, 2006.
   In re Shivers, Darren D.; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 175,533; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 40553-KH.

Denied. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8; State ex rel. Glover v. State, 93-2330 (La.9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189; 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. Timothy BRADFORD v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2006-KH-0162.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    June 23, 2006.
   In re Bradford, Timothy; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Beauregard, 36th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. CR97-96; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KH 05-01107.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. William T. BREWER, Sr. v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2006-KH-0204.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    June 23, 2006.
   In re Brewer, William T. Sr.; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. I, No. 303756; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2004 KW 2253.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Michael LAMBERT v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2006-KH-0222.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    June 23, 2006.
   In re Lambert, Michael; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. G, No. 422,428; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2005 KW 1070.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Joe STEPHENS v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2006-KH-0235.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    June 23, 2006.
   In re Stephens, Joe; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 126696.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Leal FLAGG v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2006-KH-0242.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    June 23, 2006.
   In re Flagg, Leal; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. G, No. 97-0446; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 05-KH-827.

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. Elrick J. GALLOW v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2006-KH-0245.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    June 23, 2006.
   In re Gallow, Elrick J.; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Evangeline, 13th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 58285; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KH 05-00788.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Romalis A. HARTWELL v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2006-KH-0246.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    June 23, 2006.
   In re Hartwell, Romalis A.; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. P, No. 02-5117; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 05-KH-873.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Stuart FREEMAN v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2006-KH-0249.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    June 23, 2006.
   In re Freeman, Stuart; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. H, No. 8-93-1369; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2005-KW-1464.

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. Angel NIEVES v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2006-KH-0250.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    June 23, 2006.
   In re Nieves, Angel; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. K, No. 94-211; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 05-KH-705.

Denied. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8; State ex rel. Glover v. State, 93-2330 (La.9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189; La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.3; State ex rel. Melinie v. State, 93-1380 (La.1/12/96), 665 So.2d 1172.

WEIMER, J., recused.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Derrick Louis PRIMAS v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2006-KH-1161.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    June 23, 2006.
   In re Primas, Derrick Louis; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. II, No. 12-03-352; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2006 KW 0083.

Denied. Moot.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Michael KIRKLING.
    No. 2005-KO-2045.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    June 23, 2006.
   In re Kirkling, Michael; — Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. E, No. 443-094; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2004-KA-1906.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. William SPIRES.
    No. 2005-KP-2426.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    June 23, 2006.
   In re State of Louisiana; — Plaintiff; Applying for' Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Bossier, 26th Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 117,617; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 40811-KH.

Denied.

TRAYLOR, J., would grant.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Thatcher MCELVEEN.
    No. 2006-KK-0050.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    June 23, 2006.
   In re McElveen, Thatcher; — Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. J, No. 434-604; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2005-K-0953.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Thatcher MCELVEEN.
    No. 2006-KK-0051.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    June 23, 2006.
   In re McElveen, Thatcher; — Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. J, No. 434-604; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2005-K-1259.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Thatcher MCELVEEN.
    No. 2006-KK-0052.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    June 23, 2006.
   In re McElveen, Thatcher; — Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. J, No. 434-604; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2005-K-0954.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Robert WILLIS.
    No. 2006-K-0186.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    June 23, 2006.
   In re Willis, Robert; — Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Catahoula, 7th Judicial District Court Div. B, Nos. 01-0983, 01-1112; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 05-218.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Darrell HAMPTON.
    No. 2006-K-0193.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    June 23, 2006.
   In re Hampton, Darrell; — Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Livingston, 21st Judicial District Court Div. G, No. 15994; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2005 KA 0361.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. William Wayne LEE, Jr.
    No. 2006-K-0199.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    June 23, 2006.
   In re Lee, William Wayne Jr.; — Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 371700; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2005 KA 0722.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Renode COLLINS.
    No. 2006-K-0200.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    June 23, 2006.
   In re Collins, Renode; — Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of W. Baton Rouge, 18th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 024,655; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2005 KA 0667.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Terry G. MARTINEZ.
    No. 2006-K-0203.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    June 23, 2006.
   In re Martinez, Terry G.; — Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Lafourche, 17th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 355,165; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2005 KA 0155.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Shannon D. AMOS.
    No. 2006-K-0231.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    June 23, 2006.
   In re Amos, Shannon D.; — Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. F, No. 373971-1; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2005 KA 0417.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Arthur D. RANDALL, Jr.
    No. 2006-KK-1159.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    June 23, 2006.
   In re State of Louisiana; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. E, No. 447-956; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2006-K-0250.

Denied.

TRAYLOR, J., would grant.

KNOLL, J., would grant.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Wilfredo M. VICIEDO.
    No. 2006-KH-1346.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    June 23, 2006.
   In re Viciedo, Wilfredo M.; — Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. M, No. 465557.

Denied. Moot.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Edward BARTHEL.
    No. 2006-KH-1347.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    June 23, 2006.
   In re Barthel, Edward; — Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. M, No. 463858.

Denied. Moot.


text:
    Willie TRIPLETT v. Doug MOREAU, Doug Welborn.
    No. 2005-CI-1772.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    June 23, 2006.
   In re Triplett, Willie, applying for Reconsideration this Court’s order dated March 24, 2006; Parish of East Baton Rouge, 19th District Court Div. L, No. 694-680; to the First Circuit Court of Appeal, No. 2005-CW-0219.

Reconsideration denied.


text:
    Louis STEMLEY v. LOUISIANA BOARD OF PAROLE, et al.
    No. 2005-CI-1773.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    June 23, 2006.
   In re Stemley, Louis; — Plaintiff(s); Applying for Reconsideration of this Court’s action dated March 24, 2006; Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Division D, No. 499,619; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No(s). 2003 CW 2272, 2004 CA 2259.

Reconsideration denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Terry BOUDREAUX.
    No. 2005-KO-1781.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    June 23, 2006.
   In re Boudreaux, Terry;. — Defendant; Applying for Reconsideration of this Court’s action dated February 10, 2006; Parish of Ascension, 23rd Judicial District Court, Div. E, No. 15,374; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2004 KA 2028.

Reconsideration denied.


text:
    Charles CARTER v. Classification Officer MCCOY, (Raphael Augustine), Burl Cain (Warden L.S.P.), and Richard Stalder (Secretary, D.O.C.).
    No. 2005-CI-2053.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    June 23, 2006.
   In re Carter, Charles.; — Plaintiffs); Applying for Reconsideration of this Courts action dated April 24, 2006; Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. F, No. 511,079; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2004 CA 0479.

Reconsideration denied.


text:
    Anastasia SENEGAL, Individually and as Natural Tutor of Her Minor Daughter Kierany Shelvin v. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FOR UNIVERSITY OF LOUISIANA SYSTEM, the Management Board for University of Lafayette Louisiana, Dr. Ray Authement, University of Louisiana of Lafayette, Susan Randol, and Our Lady of the Lourdes Regional Medical Center.
    No. 2006-CC-0335.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    June 23, 2006.
   In re Senegal, Anastasia, et al.; — Plaintiffs); Applying for Reconsideration of this Court’s order dated April 28,2006; Parish of East Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. M, No. 488,716; to the Court of Appeal,First Circuit, Nos. 2005-CW-2416, 2005-CW-2264.

Reconsideration denied.


text:
    Jonathan AINSWORTH v. W. Paul ANDERSON; Alexis M. Myers; Leake, Anderson & Mann L.L.P.; Leake & Anderson L.L.P.; Rene R. Godoy; Automobile Club Insurance Company, a/k/a Automobile Club Insurance Exchange, a/k/a Auto Club Family Insurance Company; John Doe; Jane Doe; John Doe II; Geico General; ABC Insurance Company; DEF Insurance Company; GHI Insurance Company; JKL Insurance Company; MNO Insurance Company; Michael T. Johnson; S. Aaron Siebeneicher; Johnson & Siebeneicher.
    No. 2006-C-0171.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    June 23, 2006.
   In re Ainsworth, Jonathan; — Plaintiff; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 587-941; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 05-CA-370.

Denied.


text:
    Ronald FOX v. Jesse A. ANDERSON and Town of Krotz Springs.
    No. 2006-C-0722.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    June 23, 2006.
   In re Anderson, Jesse A.; Town of Krotz Springs; — Defendant(s); Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of St. Landry, 27th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 02-C-2473-A; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. OS-934.

Denied.

VICTORY, J., would grant.

TRAYLOR, J., would grant.

WEIMER, J., would grant.


text:
    FLEET FUEL, INC. d/b/a Fuelman v. MYNEX, INC. and W. James Singleton.
    No. 2006-C-0762.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    June 23, 2006.
   In re Fleet Fuel, Inc. d/b/a; Fuelman;- — ■ Plaintiffs); Applying for Writ of Certiora-ri and/or Review, Parish of Caddo, Shreveport City Court, No. R-113,521; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 40,-683-CA.

Denied

JOHNSON, J., would grant the writ.


text:
    Leah F. VERDIN, Individually and on Behalf of Her Deceased Husband, Randall S. 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. 2006-C-0842.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    June 23, 2006.
   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. 05-CA-664.

Denied.


text:
    IBERIA BANK v. 3-D ACQUISITION COMPANY, L.L.C., Stephen G. Benton, Sr., Stephen G. Benton, Jr., Frank Benton and Christian T. Brown.
    No. 2006-C-0885.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    June 23, 2006.
   k ⅛ re Iberia Bank; — Plaintiff; Applying nr Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Par-Uli of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 608-150; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 05-CA-641.

Denied.


text:
    Carey BROWNFIELD, Sr. and Ella Brownfield, in Their Individual Capacities and Carey Brownfield, Sr., in his Capacity as Administrator of his Minor Son, Corey Brownfield’s Estate v. CITY OF BATON ROUGE, and its Insurer, ABC Insurance Company, Parish of East Baton Rouge and its Insurer, DEF Insurance Company, and the Recreation and Park Commission for the Parish of East Baton Rouge (BREC) and its Insurer, GHI Insurance Company.
    No. 2006-C-0943.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    June 23, 2006.
   In re Brownfield, Carey Sr. et al.; Brownfield, Ella; — Plaintiff(s); Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. F, No. 435,239; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2005 CA 449.

Denied.


text:
    Johnny JACKSON, et al. v. ESTATE OF Ellen P. JONES, et al.
    No. 2006-C-0972.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    June 23, 2006.
   In re Thomas, Betty Jean; Powell, Roy; Powell, Clyde; Powell, Stella; Powell, Tommy; Powell, Herman; — Other(s); Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Desoto, 11th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 62,160; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 40,-724-CA.

Denied.


text:
    William Daniel HAMMONS v. ABB C-E SERVICES, INC.
    No. 2006-C-0993.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    June 23, 2006.
   In re ABB C-E Services, Inc.; — Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review Office of Workers’ Compensation District 5, No. 03-08048; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2005 CA 0807.

Denied.

VICTORY, J., would grant.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana and Secretary of the Department of Revenue and Taxation v. DELL INTERNATIONAL, INC., et al.
    No. 2006-C-0996.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    June 23, 2006.
   In re Dell Catalog Sales L.P.; — Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. H, No. 456,807; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2004 CA 1702.

Denied.

KNOLL, J., would grant.


text:
    William Tony REEVES v. INTERNATIONAL MAINTENANCE CORPORATION.
    No. 2006-C-0998.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    June 23, 2006.
   In re Turner Industries Group, L.L.C. f/k/a; International Maintenance Corporation; — Defendant(s); Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review Office of Workers’ Compensation, District 3, No. 02-09174; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 05-1149.

Denied.


text:
    LOUISIANA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION CORPORATION v. Conrad FREY IV, d/b/a CF Trucking.
    No. 2006-C-1004.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    June 23, 2006.
   In re Louisiana Workers’ Compensation Corporation; — Plaintiff; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. F, No. 479,456; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2004 CA 2517.

Denied.


text:
    Lori Meyerer and Lisa MEYERER v. LAKEWOOD QUARTERS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP.
    No. 2006-C-1007.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    June 23, 2006.
   In re Lakewood Quarters Limited Partnership; — Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. J, No. 520,889; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2005 CA 0124.

Denied.


text:
    Danan HUGHES v. NEW ORLEANS SAINTS & LWCC.
    No. 2006-C-1008.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    June 23, 2006.
   In re Hughes, Danan; — Plaintiff; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review Office of Workers’ Compensation, Dist. # 7, No. 00-03224; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 05-CA-712.

Denied.


text:
    Robert Henry SCHMOLKE v. Lori Nesselhof SCHMOLKE.
    No. 2006-CC-1018.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    June 23, 2006.
   In re Schmolke, Robert Henry; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, The Family Court for the Parish of Baton Rouge, No. 153,068; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2006 CW 0328.

Denied.

TRAYLOR, J., recused.


text:
    Kelly GROS v. Brenda HOLMES and Lafourche Parish Sheriff, Craig Webre.
    No. 2006-C-1022.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    June 23, 2006.
   In re Gros, Kelly; — Plaintiff; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Lafourche, 17th Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 85053; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2004 CA 2758.

Denied.


text:
    Michael A. CASTILLE v. The OLD EVANGELINE DOWNS, L.L.C.
    No. 2006-C-1028.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    June 23, 2006.
   In re Castille, Michael A.; — Plaintiff; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of St. Martin, 16th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 69096-A; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 05-1251.

Denied.


text:
    Sheryl KIMBALL, on Behalf of Her Minor Daughter, Aleah KIMBALL v. Charles LEDET, et al.
    No. 2006-CC-1031.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    June 23, 2006.
   In re Kimball, Sheryl et al.; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Lafayette, 15th Judicial District Court Div. L, No. 2004-3992; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CW 06-00347.

Denied.


text:
    Charles THIELS, et al. v. AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL SOUTH INSURANCE COMPANY, et al. Charles Thiels, et al. v. State of Louisiana, Department of Transportation and Development, et al. Deborah D. Banks v. American International South Insurance Company, et al. Michael S. Thibodeaux v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company. American International South Insurance Company v. Estate of Charles Thiels.
    No. 2006-CC-1032.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    June 23, 2006.
   In re Transportation and Development, Dept, of; Louisiana, State of; — Defendants); Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Rapides, 9th Judicial District Court Div. G, Nos. 208,-655-G, 209,772-E, 209,915-D, 209,954-F, 210,027-G; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CW 05-01572.

Denied.


text:
    Mike D. LEGER v. SONNIER EXTERMINATING COMPANY.
    No. 2006-C-1033.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    June 23, 2006.
   In re Leger, Mike D.; — Plaintiff; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review Office of Workers’ Compensation District 4, No. 05-0397; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 05-1291.

Denied.


text:
    Devonia EVANS, et al. v. CITY OF NATCHITOCHES.
    No. 2006-C-1039.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    June 23, 2006.
   In re Natchitoches, City of; — Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Natchitoches, 10th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 69,332-B; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 05-1278.

Denied.


text:
    The NEWMAN MARCHIVE PARTNERSHIP, INC. v. CITY OF SHREVEPORT.
    No. 2006-C-1040.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    June 23, 2006.
   In re Shreveport City of; — Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 464,545; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 40,512-CA.

Denied.

VICTORY, J., would grant.


text:
    Wiley E. MAULDIN v. TOWN OF CHURCH POINT.
    No. 2006-C-1043.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    June 23, 2006.
   In re Church Point Town of; — Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review Office of Workers’ Compensation District #4, No. 04-08633; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 05-1294.

Denied.


text:
    Adrian BROUSSARD v. LAFAYETTE PARISH SCHOOL BOARD.
    No. 2006-C-1044.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    June 23, 2006.
   In re Lafayette Parish School Board;-— Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiora-ri and/or Review Office of Workers’ Compensation District 4, No. 03-05991; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. WCA 05-575.

Denied.

VICTORY, J., would grant.


text:
    Sheila HOPKINS and Ronald Hopkins v. James P. HOWARD, Celadon Trucking Services, Inc. and Reliance National Insurance Company.
    No. 2006-C-1047.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    June 23, 2006.
   In re Celadon Trucking Services, Inc.;— Plaintiff; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. N, No. 97-17813; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2005-CA-0732.

Denied.


text:
    Nathan ALES v. NEW ORLEANS.COM, L.L.C.
    No. 2006-CC-1049.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    June 23, 2006.
   In re Ales, Nathan;. — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. I, No. 2005-5371; to the Court of Appeal, ourth Circuit, No. 2005-^-1425.

fDenied.


text:
    Charles M. TINGLE and Rita Tingle v. ONE BEACON INSURANCE, America First Insurance Company, Sears, Roebuck and Company and Cornell Plumbing Super Rooter, Inc.
    No. 2006-CC-1055.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    June 23, 2006.
   In re Tingle, Charles M. et al.; Tingle, Rita; — Plaintiff(s); Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 474,590; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 41,292-CW.

Denied.

CALOGERO, C.J., would grant.


text:
    Albert L. ROBERTS, Jr., et ux. v. HARTFORD FIRE INS. CO., et al.
    No. 2006-C-1056.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    June 23, 2006.
   In re Roberts, Judy; Roberts, Albert L. Jr. et al.; — Plaintiff(s); Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Rapides, 9th Judicial District Court Div. G, No. 210,885; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 05-1178.

Denied.

JOHNSON, J., would grant.


text:
    Darrel Wayne MEARS v. COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY Insurer of/and Global Industries Offshore, LLC.
    No. 2006-C-1057.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    June 23, 2006.
   In re Global Industries Offshore LLC;— Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiora-ri and/or Review, Parish of Calcasieu, 14th Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 2001-005194 D; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 05-1353.

Denied.


text:
    FABIAN PATIN AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTS, APLC v. The LAW FIRM OF FLOURNOY, DOGGETT & LOSAVIO, APLC.
    No. 2006-C-1058.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    June 23, 2006.
   In re Fabian Patín and Assoc. Architects; — Plaintiff; Applying for Writ of Cer-tiorari and/or Review, Parish of Lafayette, 15th Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 2002-1025-C; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CA 05-1311.

Denied.


text:
    Bridget HUIE, et al. v. CITY OF LEESVILLE.
    No. 2006-C-1060.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    June 23, 2006.
   In re Leesville City of; — Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Vernon, 30th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 69,445-B; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 05-1308.

Denied.

VICTORY, J., would grant.


text:
    Felix MOUTON, Jr. v. RAPIDES PARISH POLICE JURY.
    No. 2006-C-1061.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    June 23, 2006.
   In re Mouton, Felix Jr.; — -Plaintiff; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Rapides, 9th Judicial District Court Div. F, No. 218,920; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 05-721.

Denied.


text:
    INDUSTRIAL SCREW & SUPPLY CO., INC. v. WPS, INC.
    No. 2006-C-1063.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    June 23, 2006.
   In re WPS Inc.; — Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Iberia, 16th Judicial District Court Div. H, No. 104,143; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 05-1188.

Denied.


text:
    James R. DUPLECHAIN v. BELL OFFICE SUPPLY.
    No. 2006-C-1065.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    June 23, 2006.
   In re Bell Office Supply; — Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review Office of Workers’ Compensation District 02, No. 03-08243; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 05-1282.

Denied.

VICTORY, J., would grant.


text:
    NEW ORLEANS FIREFIGHTERS ASSOCIATION LOCAL 632, AFL-CIO, and Steven Glynn, John Weinmann, Robert Volante, Glenn Trainor, Dean Dearmond, Terry Paternastro, Keith Trainor, Patrick Lampard, Barry Caruso, Donald Veazey, George Helm, et al. v. The CITY OF NEW ORLEANS.
    No. 2006-C-1067.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    June 23, 2006.
   In re New Orleans City of; — Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. F, No. 94-00831; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2004-CA-2078.

Denied.

JOHNSON, J., recused.


text:
    Joann LEBOEUF and Evans J. Leboeuf, Sr. v. WAL-MART STORES, INC. and Claims Management, Inc.
    No. 2006-C-1070.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    June 23, 2006.
   In re Wal Mart Stores Inc. et al.; Claims Management Inc.; — Defendant(s); Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. I, No. 516467; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2004 CA 2260.

Denied.


text:
    Peter JEANLOUIS and Janet Jeanlouis v. KAJUN TRUCK PLAZA, L.L.C. and Colony Insurance Company.
    No. 2006-CC-1073.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    June 23, 2006.
   In re Kajun Truck Plaza, L.L.C.; Colony Insurance Company; — Defendant(s); Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Lafourche, 17th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 99,686; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2006 CW 0225.

Denied.

VICTORY, J., would grant.


text:
    Elijah A. ALEXANDER, Jr. v. LOUISIANA LEGAL SYSTEM, et al.
    No. 2006-CP-1076.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    June 23, 2006.
   In re Aexander, Elijah A. Jr.; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Ouachita, West Monroe City Court, Nos. 86494, 86495.

Denied on showing made.

TRAYLOR, J., recused.-


text:
    Samuel DAVIS, and Walter and Elaine Davis v. J.C. PENNEY STORES.
    No. 2006-C-1080.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    June 23, 2006.
   In re Davis, Walter; Davis, Samuel et al.; Davis, Elaine; — Plaintiff(s); Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 575-672; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 05-CA-881.

Denied.


text:
    Roy RASPANTI v. Janine RASPANTE
    No. 2006-CC-1081.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    June 23, 2006.
   In re Raspanti, Roy; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. O, No. 589-627; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 06-C-217.

Denied.


text:
    Robert NOONAN, et al. v. Mike ACHEAMPONG, et al.
    No. 2006-CC-1082.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    June 23, 2006.
   In re Acheampong, Mike; — Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. H, No. 2005-8430; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2006-C-0373.

Denied.


text:
    Roslyn DAVIS and Murphy Davis v. Dr. Edward LAZARUS and Sheila Fontenot, CRNA.
    No. 2006-C-1102.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    June 23, 2006.
   In re Davis, Murphy; — Plaintiff; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. J, No. 99-20185; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2004-CA-0582.

Denied.


text:
    Allaye BAH v. CONTINENTAL CASUALTY INSURANCE CO., Coca-Cola Enterprises, Inc., and Beverly Kitchen.
    No. 2006-C-1103.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    June 23, 2006.
   In re Bah, Allaye; — Plaintiff; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. J, No. 2003-1470; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2005-CA-0499.

Denied.


text:
    Roslyn DAVIS and Murphy Davis v. Dr. Edward LAZARUS and Sheila Fontenot, CRNA.
    No. 2006-C-1114.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    June 23, 2006.
   In re Louisiana Patient’s Compensation Fund; — Other; Applying for Writ of Cer-tiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. J, No. 99-20185; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2004-CA-0582.

Denied.


text:
    Steven PORTIS v. MUNICIPAL COURT.
    No. 2006-KH-1234.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    June 23, 2006.
   In re Portis, Steven; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. M, No. 987302.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Keith WALKER.
    No. 2006-KK-1045.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    June 23, 2006.
   In re State of Louisiana; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. B, No. 457-707; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2006-K-0411.

Granted.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Leslie Otto ORDODI.
    No. 2006-K-0207.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    June 23, 2006.
   In re State of Louisiana; — Plaintiff; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Iberia, 16th Judicial District Court Div. G, No. 04-1145; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 05-0522.

Granted.


author: PATRICIA RIVET MURRAY, Judge.

text:
    Mary A. THONN v. SLIDELL MEMORIAL HOSPITAL.
    No. 2005-CA-0847.
    Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.
    April 5, 2006.
    Joseph G. Albe, Bay St. Louis, MS, Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellant.
    John A. Keller, Keller & Trahant, L.L.C., Madisonville, Counsel for Defendant/Appellee.
    (Court composed of Judge PATRICIA RIVET MURRAY, Judge MICHAEL E. KIRBY, Judge TERRI F. LOVE).
   PATRICIA RIVET MURRAY, Judge.

| plaintiff, Mary Thonn, appeals the judgment of the workers’ compensation court denying her Motion to Compel Medical Evaluation. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS BELOW

Ms. Thonn was injured in an employment-related accident on October 18, 2000, when she tripped and fell over a box while working as an x-ray technician at Slidell Memorial Hospital [“SMH”]. She was initially treated for her injuries by her orthopedist, Dr. James Butler. On September 7, 2001, the workers’ compensation court entered a consent judgment stipulating that the claimant’s injuries and resulting disability were causally related to her accident, entitling Ms. Thonn to compensation benefits as well as to payment by SMH of “reasonable and necessary medical treatment by Dr. Butler” for the injuries she sustained in the accident.

In May, 2003, counsel for Ms. Thonn sent a letter to SMH requesting that they pay for her to be evaluated by another physician, Dr. R. Vaclav Hamsa. Without receiving authorization, Ms. Thonn saw Dr. Hamsa in July. On August 7, 1⅞2003, Ms. Thonn’s attorney forwarded to SMH the report of Dr. Hamsa, of the Metairie Or-thopaedic Clinic, which report recommended that Ms. Thonn undergo a disco-gram CT study. SMH took the position that Dr. Butler, not Dr. Hamsa, was the claimant’s chosen orthopedist and that the testing recommended by Dr. Hamsa was unnecessary and had not been established as being related to the claimant’s accident.

On April 28, 2004, Ms. Thonn filed a Disputed Claim for Compensation and a Motion to Compel Medical Evaluation and Treatment. In her motion, claimant sought to compel SMH to authorize the discogram CT recommended by Dr. Hamsa, to authorize an additional evaluation by a urologist, Dr. Neil Baum, and to be assessed penalties and attorney’s fees for its continuing refusal to pay for her treatment by Dr. Hamsa. Following a hearing on June 4, 2004, the workers’ compensation court rendered judgment on June 8, 2004, ordering that the claimant undergo an initial evaluation by Dr. Baum and a re-evaluation by Dr. Butler before the court would decide whether to authorize the discogram, and reserving ruling on all other issues until an evidentiary hearing could be held.

The evidentiary hearing was held on November 4, 2004. Prior to the hearing, Ms. Thonn indicated that she was no longer seeking authorization for the discogram. The workers’ compensation court framed the issues before it as follows:

(1) Did the claimant choose Dr. Butler as her orthopedist?
|s(2) Assuming the claimant chose Dr. Butler, should she be allowed to change her choice to Dr. Hamsa?
(3) Are the claimant’s urinary complaints related to her accident, and is she entitled to treatment by Dr. Baum for those complaints?
(4) Is the claimant entitled to penalties and attorney fees for her employer’s failure to pay medical benefits timely under La. R.S. 23:1201?

By judgment rendered January 26, 2005, the workers’ compensation court found that Ms. Thonn made an “informed” choice of Dr. Butler as her treating orthopedist and that she was not entitled to change to Dr. Hamsa because she failed to prove any medical reason that would necessitate such a change; that the claimant failed to prove that her urinary problems were related to the October 18, 2000, accident; and that the defendant, SMH, was not liable for its failure to timely authorize and pay medical benefits under La. R.S. 23:1201 because it had reasonably controverted the claim.

DISCUSSION

Ms. Thonn now appeals the January 26, 2005 judgment. On appeal, she assigns as errors only the lower court’s finding that SMH reasonably controverted her right to be treated by Dr. Hamsa and the court’s failure to award penalties and attorney fees based upon this conclusion; and secondly, the court’s finding that Ms. Thonn failed to show a reasonable basis for changing her choice of treating orthopedists from Dr. Butler to Dr. Hamsa.

14These are factual issues. It is well settled that factual findings in workers’ compensation cases are subject to the manifest error or clearly wrong standard of appellate review. Seal v. Gaylord Container Corp., 97-0688, p. 4 (La.12/2/97), 704 So.2d 1161, 1164; Booker v. International Rivereenter, 04-1980 (La.App. 4 Cir. 6/22/05), 905 So.2d 498. Therefore, the issue to be resolved by this court is not whether the workers’ compensation court was right or wrong, but whether its conclusion was a reasonable one based on the entire record. See Stobart v. State, Department of Transportation and Development, 617 So.2d 880, 882 (La.1993).

Appellant first challenges the lower court’s finding that SMH is not liable for failing to timely authorize and pay for her initial visits to Dr. Hamsa because SMH reasonably controverted the claim. La. R.S. 23:1201 provides, in pertinent part:

E. Medical benefits payable under this Chapter shall be paid within sixty days after the employer or insurer receives written notice thereof.
F. Failure to provide payment in accordance with this Section or failure to consent to the employee’s request to select a treating physician or change physicians... shall result in the assessment of a penalty.. .together with reasonable attorney fees for each disputed claim....
⅜ ⅜ ⅜ ⅜ ⅜
(2) This subsection shall not apply if the claim is reasonably controverted or if such nonpayment results from conditions over which the employer or insurer had no control.

The Louisiana Supreme Court has stated that in order to “reasonably controvert” a claim, the defendant must have some valid reason or evidence |supon which to base its denial of benefits. Brown v. Texas-La Cartage, Inc., 98-1063, p. 9 (La.12/1/98), 721 So.2d 885, 890. The Court further stated:

Thus, to determine whether the claimant’s right has been reasonably controverted, thereby precluding the imposition of penalties and attorney fees under La. R.S, 23:1201, a court must ascertain whether the employer or his insurer engaged in a nonfrivolous legal dispute or possessed factual and/or medical information to reasonably counter the factual and medical information presented by the claimant throughout the time he refused to pay all or part of the benefits allegedly owed.... If an employer or insurer reasonably controverts a claim and then becomes aware of information that makes his controversion of that claim unreasonable, he must then pay the benefits owed or be subject to penalties and attorney fees from that point forward.

Brown v. Texas-LA Cartage, Inc., supra, at pp. 9-10, 721 So.2d at 890-891 (Emphasis added.).

In this appeal, Ms. Thonn does not argue that the workers’ compensation court erred by finding that Dr. Butler was her original choice of physicians. She in fact admitted at trial that she had signed the choice of physician form introduced as evidence, which form clearly states:

I understand that I have the choice of physician for treatment of my job-related illness or injury.
I also understand that I may not change physicians without the consent of the employer or the workers’ compensation insurer.

At trial, Ms. Thonn contended that she was entitled to change her choice of physicians to Dr. Hamsa because Dr. Hamsa specialized in pain management. Ms. Thonn also testified at trial that she saw Dr. Hamsa because she wanted a second opinion.

SMH argues that under the law, Ms. Thonn was not entitled to change her choice of orthopedists without proving that there was a medical necessity for the change. La. R.S. 23:1121(B) provides, in pertinent part:

LThe employee shall have the right to select one treating physician in any field or specialty.... After his initial choice, the employee shall obtain prior consent from the employer or his workers’ compensation carrier for a change of treating physician within that same specialty. The employee, however, is not required to obtain approval for change to a treating physician in another field or specialty-

This court has previously held that the last sentence of the above-quoted provision does not give an employee the right to select multiple treating physicians at the same time. Jasper v. Memorial Medical Center, 03-0489, pp. 3-4 (La.App. 4 Cir. 6/11/03), 853 So.2d 21, 23. Moreover, because the workers’ compensation law only requires the employer to pay for treatment that is medically necessary (see La. R.S. 23:1203), the courts have consistently held that a claimant who wishes to change his or her choice of treating physicians must prove the medical necessity for the treatment to be provided by the new physician. See Lang-Parker v. Unisys Corporation, 00-0880, p. 10 (La.App. 1 Cir. 10/5/01), 809 So.2d 441, 449; Lemoine v. Hessmer Nursing Home, 94-836, p. 18 (La.App. 3 Cir. 3/1/95), 651 So.2d 444, 454; Pekinto v. Olsten Corporation, 587 So.2d 68, 74 (La.App. 4th Cir.1991).

In the instant case, the workers’ compensation court found that SMH reasonably controverted the plaintiffs claim because SMH had no information to show either that Dr. Hamsa practiced in a different field than Dr. Butler or that the switch to Dr. Hamsa was medically necessary. After reviewing the record, we find that the evidence supports the conclusion of the workers’ compensation court. Dr. Butler’s records show that he never discharged Ms. Thonn, and that on her last visit with him before she went see Dr. Hamsa, Dr. Butler approved Ms. Thonn’s return to light-duty work 17and requested to see her again in three months. Neither physician testified at trial. In his deposition, introduced at trial, Dr. Butler testified he did not refer Ms. Thonn to Dr. Hamsa. Ms. Thonn corroborated this fact.

The initial letter dated May 15, 2003, to HSLI (Hospital Services for Louisiana, Inc., the third party administrator of workers’ compensation claims for SMH) by Ms. Thonn’s counsel requesting approval for her treatment by Dr. Hamsa gives no reason for the change of physicians nor any indication that Dr. Hamsa specialized in anything other than orthopedics. None of the subsequent correspondence between the parties contains any indication that Dr. Hamsa specialized in pain management. Dr. Hamsa’s February 6, 2004, report documenting his treatment of Ms. Thonn, which was forwarded to HSLI, is written on the letterhead of “Metairie Orthopaedic Clinic.” There was no evidence introduced at trial to show that Dr. Hamsa specialized in pain management. In fact, the documents in the record indicate that both he and Dr. Butler were treating Ms. Thonn similarly, by prescribing pain medication and giving injections. Dr. Hamsa’s report on his treatment of Ms. Thonn also indicates that Dr. Hamsa intended that his findings be shared with Dr. Butler.

Mr. Robert Hilborn, senior claim consultant for HSLI, testified that when HSLI received the initial request for treatment of Ms. Thonn by Dr. Hamsa, HLSI sought the advice of its legal counsel, who opined that as Dr. Butler was Ms. Thonn’s treating orthopedist, no further treatment by any other orthopedist need be authorized. As HSLI received no further information to alter this opinion, it continued to withhold payment. However, when Dr. Butler was deposed on October 15, 2004 (approximately |stwo weeks prior to the Nov. 4th hearing), he stated that although he did not refer Ms. Thonn to Dr. Hamsa, he now preferred that she be treated by Dr. Ham-sa for pain management. After receiving this information, on October 26, 2004, HLSI sent a letter to Ms. Thonn’s counsel approving treatment by Dr. Hamsa for pain management only, with Dr. Butler remaining her treating orthopedist.

Considering the record, we cannot say that the determination of the workers’ compensation court was manifestly erroneous. The record clearly supports both the lower court’s conclusions: that the defendant, SMH, reasonably controverted Ms. Thonn’s claim, and that Ms. Thonn failed to meet her burden of proving there was a medical necessity for her to change her treating orthopedist to Dr. Hamsa. Accordingly, we find that the workers’ compensation court did not err by declining to assess penalties or attorney fees against SMH.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated, the judgment of the workers’ compensation court is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.