text:
    Michael R. BANKS, Appellant, v. MAXWELL BUILDING CORPORATION, Appellee.
    No. 4D05-2515.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    April 12, 2006.
    Julie K. Oldehoff of the Oldehoff Law Offices, Stuart, for appellant.
    No appearance for appellee.
   KLEIN, J.

We affirm a judgment awarding section 57.105, Florida Statutes (2003) attorney’s fees against attorney Michael Banks. We reject his arguments on the merits as well as his argument that the court erred in awarding fees for a paralegal who did not testify at the evidentiary hearing. In Toledo v. Wisk, 754 So.2d 83 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000), we held that it was not necessary for all attorneys who worked on a case to testify at an attorney’s fee hearing, where an attorney who was most heavily involved testified as to the efforts expended by the firm. It follows that if it is unnecessary for all attorneys to testify, it is unnecessary for a paralegal to testify. Affirmed.

POLEN and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur.


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: FARMER, J.

license: Public Domain

text:
    S.R., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D05-811.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    April 12, 2006.
    Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Michael Antinori, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
    Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, Tallahassee, and David M. Schultz, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.
   FARMER, J.

Reversed. The finding of a violation of probation for failing to complete required community service was error in the absence of a formally imposed deadline in the disposition order for doing so. Willis v. State, 727 So.2d 952, 953 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (citing Llumbet v. State, 698 So.2d 381 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)); Tracy v. State, 673 So.2d 544, 544 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (citing Young v. State, 566 So.2d 69 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)). The State concedes that the fifty hours of community service were capable of being performed within the remainder of S.R.’s probationary period. Green v. State, 620 So.2d 1126, 1130 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993); Shipman v. State, 903 So.2d 386, 387-88 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005).

POLEN and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.


author: PER CURIAM.

text:
    Marilyn A. SMITH, Petitioner, v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent.
    No. 3D06-2.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    April 12, 2006.
    Marilyn A. Smith, in proper person.
    Angones, McClure & Garcia and Francisco Angones, for respondent.
    Before COPE, C.J., and GERSTEN and SUAREZ, JJ.
   On Order to Show Cause

PER CURIAM.

This court issued an order to the petitioner Marilyn A. Smith to show cause why she should not be barred from filing further petitions for writ of habeas corpus in this court. In the instant petition, and previous1 ones, the petitioner has attempted to use the petition for writ of habeas corpus as a mechanism to bring before this court a dispute between herself and respondent Allstate Insurance Company. The apparent purpose of invoking habeas corpus is because a petition for writ of habeas corpus does not require a filing fee. See Art. I, § 13, Fla. Const.

The petitioner is not incarcerated. It is impermissible, and frivolous, to attempt to litigate an insurance dispute in a petition for writ of habeas corpus. See 28 Fla. Jur.2d, Habeas Corpus § 3 (1998).

We conclude that the petitioner qualifies as a vexatious litigant under the authorities summarized in Sibley v. Sibley, 885 So.2d 980, 985-88 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004).

We direct the clerk of this court to reject any further petitions for writ of habeas corpus in this court on the petitioner’s behalf unless signed by a member in good standing of the Florida Bar. See id. at 988. To the extent that the petitioner’s filings were intended to be a motion for rehearing of this court’s order denying the petition for writ of habeas corpus, rehearing is denied.


text:
    Kenneth STEELE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D06-155.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    April 19, 2006.
    Kenneth Steele, South Bay, pro se.
    Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Joseph A. Tringali, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.
   PER CURIAM.

Kenneth Steele appeals the summary denial of his rule 3.850 motion for postcon-viction relief. The trial court denied appellant’s 3.850 motion as untimely without ruling on the merits of appellant’s three claims. The appellant’s rule 3.850 motion was timely filed, as his judgment and sentence were not final until the thirty day period for filing an appeal expired. Napolitano v. State, 782 So.2d 1012 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001); Caracciolo v. State, 564 So.2d 1163 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). Accordingly, the trial court’s denial of these claims is reversed and remanded for an evidentiary hearing or record attachments that conclusively show appellant is not entitled to relief.

FARMER, GROSS and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.


author: MAY, J.

text:
    R.L. SAMUEL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D04-2709.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    April 19, 2006.

      Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Jeffrey N. Golant, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
    Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, Tallahassee, and James J. Carney, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.
   MAY, J.

The defendant appeals his conviction and sentence on two counts of lewd and lascivious battery on a minor. He argues, among other things, that the two convictions violate his right against double jeopardy. We disagree and affirm.

This is yet another sexual scenario in which this court is called upon to determine whether sexual acts occur so close in time and space that they should constitute a single crime or whether there is a sufficient temporal break allowing for the defendant to form a separate intent to justify a conviction for multiple crimes. As this court stated in Schwenn v. State, 898 So.2d 1130, 1132 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005), when the acts are “distinct in character and temporally separated” giving “the defendant sufficient time between each ... to reflect and form a new criminal intent,” there is no double jeopardy violation.

In this case, the State charged the defendant with performing oral sex on a male child. In a separate count, the State charged the defendant with having the male child perform oral sex on the defendant. The testimony reflected two sexual acts “distinct in character” and “temporally separated” such that the defendant had sufficient time to reflect and form a new criminal intent. There was therefore no double jeopardy violation.

Affirmed.

STONE and GROSS, JJ., concur.


author: TAYLOR, J.

text:
    Mark CRAVEN and Donald de Pamphilis d/b/a Annie’s Dream Ice Cream, Appellants, v. TRG-BOYNTON BEACH, LTD., Appellee.
    No. 4D05-1773.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    April 19, 2006.

      Thomas E. Kingcade of Thomas E. Kingcade, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellants.
    Mark F. Bideau and Jonathan C. Chañe of Greenberg Traurig, P.A., West Palm Beach and Elliot H. Scherker and Daniel M. Samson of Greenberg Traurig, P.A., Miami, for appellee.
   TAYLOR, J.

Mark Craven and Donald De Pamphilis d/b/a Annie’s Dream Ice Cream, plaintiffs below, appeal a summary judgment entered against them on their claim for breach of a commercial lease. We reverse the summary judgment, concluding that the lease agreement is not unenforceable due to lack of consideration and that genuine issues of material fact remain as to whether the defendant’s changes to the site plan would adversely affect the plaintiffs’ ability to operate their ice cream store. However, we affirm the trial court’s ruling as to specific performance, because, as appellee, TRG-Boynton Beach, Ltd. (TRG), argues, requiring reconstruction of the development according to the original plans would entail excessive supervision by the trial court. Thus, specific performance was properly rejected as a remedy.

In 1998, plaintiffs met with Steve Baugh, the project manager for Ocean Breeze Festival Park, Inc. (Ocean Breeze), concerning a lease for a store in Ocean Breeze’s proposed development at the Boynton Beach Marina. ' At the time, Ocean Breeze was planning to develop the marina with an old Key West-style fishing village atmosphere. The marina project envisioned a place where people could walk around, with easy access to retail shops and offices above the shops. Rental apartments were to be built on the west side of the development. Plaintiffs planned to open a homemade ice cream store, “Annie’s Dream Ice Cream,” in the retail section of the development.

Ocean Breeze presented plaintiffs with a draft lease. Plaintiffs had already picked a location on the site plan that they felt very strongly about. The first lease presented was not specific enough about the location, so they obtained an amendment to designate the location. They also deleted a provision about relocation, because they did not want to be relocated. Ocean Breeze accepted the amendments, which were incorporated into the final draft.

Ocean Breeze gave plaintiffs a diagram of the project before the lease was signed. Plaintiffs chose their location from that site plan. It was designated as B-116 and B-117 in retail building B, in the spaces adjacent to the restaurant known as Bello-ti’s. Although the final draft of the lease made reference to the leased premises as spaces 116 and 117 on the site plan (which it recited was an attached exhibit), the “floor plan” page attached at the time of execution and at the time of recording was actually blank. Plaintiffs received a copy of the site plan from the landlord by tele-fax. However, there was never any question about where spaces 116 and 117 were located.

The most critical provision of the lease is the following:

2. Premises
(a) Description of Premises. Landlord leases to Tenant, and Tenant leases from landlord, the Leased Premises described in Section 1. The Leased Premises is highlighted or otherwise indicated on a diagram of the Project attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit “A.” Exhibit “A” sets forth the general layout of the Project and shall not be deemed a warranty on the part of the Landlord that the Project is or will be exactly as indicated on such diagram. Landlord may increase, reduce, or change the number, dimensions, and locations of roadways, walks, buildings, and parking areas as Landlord from time to time deems proper notwithstanding, that such modifications by Landlord as provided for herein shall in no manner whatsoever, adversely affect the ingress, egress, visibility or ability of Tenant to operate Tenant’s business.

(emphasis added).

The lease describes the rental term as ten years, with two five-year options after that. The rent, including common area and other charges, was to be $1,739.08 per month for rental of the retail “shell.” According to the lease, the security deposit of $1,739.08 was to be paid at the time the lease was executed. The plaintiffs never paid the landlord a security deposit (or any other money) in connection with the lease. It is undisputed that the landlord told plaintiffs that they did not have to provide the security deposit until the building was completed and they took possession.

Paragraph 23 of the lease provides for instances of tenant default. In the case of monetary defaults, the tenant is to be given ten days’ written notice by the landlord in which to remedy the default and avoid the landlord’s remedies for default, which include termination of the lease.

Paragraph 24 provides that “no waiver by Landlord of any provision of this Lease shall be deemed to have been agreed upon unless expressed in a writing signed by the parties.” Similar language can be found in the lease’s merger clause.

The City of Boynton Beach approved the project as originally conceived in February 2000. After the lease was executed, the development twice changed hands. First, it was sold by Ocean Breeze to AERC, who held the property for a couple of years. It was then sold to TRG, the current owner.

In 2002, TRG completely redesigned the original project. The entire “retail B” building, which was to house Annie’s Dream, was eliminated and replaced with townhomes. The TRG architect testified that the “retail B” building had to be changed to comply with the building code for the planned adjacent cul-de-sac. He also testified about other site plan revisions required by the city.

While awaiting city approval for the new site plan, TRG informed plaintiffs that the original location for Annie’s Dream would no longer be available. It offered plaintiffs commercial space in the newly designed project. Plaintiffs rejected the offer and filed suit against TRG, seeking to require TRG to develop the property as proposed in the original site plan or pay money damages.

The Second Amended Complaint contained two counts: 1) specific performance and 2) damages. Plaintiffs alleged that the lease agreement required TRG to develop the marina project according to the original Ocean Breeze site plan and that the project’s redesign would adversely affect their ability to operate their business. Defendant moved for summary judgment arguing, inter alia, that the lease was unenforceable because it lacked consideration due to plaintiffs’ failure to pay the security deposit. Defendant did not argue that the failure to pay the security deposit was a breach of the lease. The trial court entered summary judgment as to the specific performance count. The order stated, in pertinent part:

No competent evidence was offered by the Plaintiffs that moving the location of the building in which their ice cream store was to be located would adversely affect the ingress, egress, or business of Annie’s Dream Ice Cream Store. Thus, Defendant’s redesign of the Project was permitted under ¶ 2(a) of the Lease.

The order added that the remedy of specific performance was not available as it would require the court to become “inextricably intertwined” with the project being developed by TRG. It also added, as an alternative rationale, that no consideration (security deposit) was provided by plaintiffs, thus making the lease “unenforceable.” The trial court, however, did not find that the lease had been breached by plaintiffs’ failure to pay the security deposit. When the defendant later moved for summary judgment as to the remaining damages count, the trial court entered summary judgment on the damages claim as well.

The standard of review of the entry of summary judgment is de novo. Everett Painting Co. v. Padula & Wadsworth Constr., Inc., 856 So.2d 1059, 1061 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). The law is well settled in Florida that a party moving for summary judgment must show conclusively the absence of any genuine issue of material fact, and the court must draw every possible inference in favor of the party against whom a summary judgment is sought. Wills v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 351 So.2d 29 (Fla.1977); Holl v. Talcott, 191 So.2d 40 (Fla.1966). A summary judgment should not be granted unless the facts are so crystallized that nothing remains but questions of law. Shaffran v. Holness, 93 So.2d 94 (Fla.1957). The burden is initially on the movant. Only where the movant tenders competent evidence in support of his motion does the burden shift to the other party to come forward with opposing evidence. Lenhal Realty, Inc. v. Transamerica Commercial Fin. Corp., 615 So.2d 207 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993).

Plaintiffs alleged that TRG should be required to build the retail and office building as proposed in the original site plan because any change would adversely affect the ingress, egress, and visibility of their business or plaintiffs’ ability to operate their business. According to De Pam-philis’s testimony, the new project completely altered the original marina concept and replaced it with a “gated community” atmosphere. In place of the retail building, which was designed to attract the public for strolls around the marina and visits to the boutiques and shops, the new site plan called for a row of townhouses. De Pamphilis testified that the entire project was made much less accessible to the public because people are not inclined to walk and roam around the front of townhouses. Thus, according to De Pamphilis, the plaintiffs’ ability to do business would be negatively impacted by the changes to the development.

The parties agree that this case turns on the evidence regarding whether the redesign of the project will “adversely affect ... the ability of Tenant to operate Tenant’s business.” TRG has not pointed to evidence in the record which would establish that Annie’s Dream would be unaffected by the changes to the development. Our independent review of the record discloses only one witness’s testimony which could conceivably have shifted the burden of proof. Lawrence Justiz, a former director of land acquisition for TRG, testified that in his opinion the alternate sites being offered to plaintiffs provide the same visibility, ingress and egress and ability to run the business as the original plan. However, he offered this opinion without any supporting facts or explanation. Con-clusory, self-serving testimony is not sufficient to shift the burden of proof. See Heitmeyer v. Sasser, 664 So.2d 358 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); see also Dep’t of Transp. v. Spioch, 642 So.2d 788, 791 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994).

Even if Justiz’s testimony did somehow shift the burden, it was met squarely by the testimony of Donald De Pamphilis. As mentioned above, De Pamphilis explained how plaintiffs’ ability to do business will be negatively affected by the new design. In addition, Steve Baugh, the representative of the original landlord, testified that elimination of the retail building will adversely affect public access and operation of the plaintiffs’ business. To grant summary judgment in this case, the trial court would have to find TRG’s conclusory self-serving testimony competent, while finding the plaintiffs’ somewhat less conclusory testimony incompetent. This would be improper. See Petrusha v. Smartparks-Silver Springs, Inc., 914 So.2d 502 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (a court may not weigh the evidence or judge the credibility of witnesses in arriving at summary judgment). Because TRG did not meet its burden to show conclusively the absence of any genuine issues of material fact regarding the adverse effect of TRG’s relocation of the retail building on plaintiffs business operation, visibility, ingress and egress, the trial court erred in granting summary judgment.

The trial court accepted TRG’s argument that because the plaintiffs did not pay the security deposit, the contract lacked consideration and hence was unenforceable. However, plaintiffs’ executory promise to pay rent is ample consideration to support the lease. See Henderson v. Morton, 109 Fla. 300, 147 So. 456, 457 (1933); Harper v. Bronson, 104 Fla. 75, 139 So. 203, 208 (1932). Further, TRG never argued below or on appeal that the failure to pay the security deposit was a breach justifying termination of the contract. In any event, this argument would have failed, because TRG never gave the plaintiffs written notice of the breach and the ten day period thereafter within which to cure, as called for by the lease’s express terms.

Although the trial court erred in granting summary judgment on the damages claim, it properly ruled that specific performance was not available because such relief would require the court to become inextricably intertwined with the project’s development. In the seminal case of Calumet Co. v. Oil City Corp., 114 Fla. 531, 154 So. 141, 142 (1934), the Florida Supreme Court explained:

Where the main object of a contract is to secure the development of land by the drilling of test well (sic) for oil and gas on it, to the end that it may be determined whether the land contains oil or gas, and where the nature and character of the drilling to be done is left almost entirely to the good faith, judgment, discretion, and skill of the one undertaking to drill the test wells contracted for, so that the performance of the contract requires some personal supervision that will extend over a considerable period of time, such contract, in so far as it affects the contracting driller, is incapable of specific performance by decree against him, because of the inability of the court to undertake supervision of performance of such a contract.

Here, a decree of specific performance would require the court to oversee the demolition of eleven new townhomes (valued at $5 million) and the reconstruction of the property according to the original plan, assuming that the city would even permit such a change back to the original plan.

Generally, Florida, like the vast majority of other jurisdictions, does not permit specific performance of a lease, even in ordinary circumstances, because the court would be forced to undertake an excessive supervisory responsibility. See Cardinal Inv. Group, Inc. v. Giles, 813 So.2d 262, 263 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002); see also Mayor’s Jewelers, Inc. v. State of Cal. Pub. Employees’ Retirement Sys., 685 So.2d 904, 904-05 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). This principle applies with extra force where, as here, the leased premises have yet to be built and would, in fact, require the destruction of new homes and dispossession of the residents to even begin construction.

For the reasons stated above, we reverse the trial court’s final summary judgment on the damages claim and affirm as to the specific performance count.

Affirmed in part, Reversed in part and Remanded.

POLEN and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur.


author: KLEIN, J.

text:
    STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Joel SAVITCH, Appellee.
    No. 4D05-1328.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    April 19, 2006.
    Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Katherine Y. Mclntire, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
    Carlo D’Angelo of D’Angelo and Molle, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, and Jason T. For-man of the Law Offices of Jason T. For-man, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.
   KLEIN, J.

The state appeals an order granting defendant’s motion for discharge based on our speedy trial rule. We reverse.

Defendant was arrested on September 16, 2004, but the state filed a “no information” on November 8, 2004. A “no information” is filed by the state to inform a person who has been arrested that an information will not be filed or an indictment will not be sought. Lovelace v. State, 906 So.2d 1258 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). The state did, however, file an information against defendant on January 19, 2005, and on February 28, 2005, private counsel appeared on behalf of defendant.

The defendant did not file a demand for speedy trial, but the 175 day speedy trial period, which runs from the time of the arrest, expired on March 9, 2005. See Rule 3.191(a), Fla. R.Crim. P. Two days later, on March 11, defendant filed a notice of expiration of the speedy trial period and moved for discharge. At a hearing held on the motion for discharge on March 16, 2005, the state argued it was entitled to the 15 day recapture period provided in rule 3.191(p), but the trial court held that State v. Morris, 662 So.2d 378 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995), required that defendant be discharged.

In Morris the defendant filed a demand for speedy trial under rule 3.191(b), and the state later nolle prossed because its key witness was on vacation and not available for the trial. The state then refiled the charges the next day, while the speedy trial period was still running, but the defendant was not rearrested or notified of the new charges before the speedy trial period expired. We affirmed the trial court’s application of rule 3.191(o), which provides that the state cannot avoid the speedy trial rule by the use of a nolle prosequi, basing our decision on the fact that the defendant was not made aware of the new charges.

In the present case, as we noted earlier, while the speedy trial period was still running, the state filed the information and private counsel filed a notice of appearance. We accordingly cannot agree with the defendant that Morris required a discharge here, because it is clear in this case that the defendant was aware that the information had been filed. The trial court therefore erred in discharging the defendant based on Morris, and we reverse.

WARNER, J. and BAILEY, JENNIFER D., Associate Judge, concur.

      . The state has suggested that Morris may not be good law in light of our later decision in C.D. v. State, 865 So.2d 605 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (en banc). In C.D. we receded from earlier decisions which turned on whether a juvenile defendant had notice of the filing of charges so as to be able to take advantage of the speedy trial period and acknowledged that the rule did not require notice. We concluded that the fact that the defendant in CD. did not know that he had been charged until after the speedy trial period had expired did not deprive the state of the 15 day recapture period provided in rule 8.090(m).
      The state cites State v. B.S.S., 890 So.2d 487 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004), in which the fifth district followed CD. but questioned whether CD. silently overruled Morris. We think that point is well taken, because there is no requirement of notice in either the juvenile rule or the adult rule. Because Morris does not apply in the present case, it is unnecessary for us to consider that question. We note that in Wells v. State, 881 So.2d 54, n. 1 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004), this court raised the question as to whether Morris survived CD., and implied that it did not. The third district has followed Morris. Cordero v. State, 686 So.2d 737 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997); State v. Gantt, 688 So.2d 1012 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997). The fifth district, before B.S.S., affirmed a case without opinion, citing Morris and Cordero. State v. Rowley, 722 So.2d 286 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998).


text:
    WORLD ENTERTAINMENT PARTNERS, LLC, Appellant, v. TREVIA, LLC, Appellee.
    Nos. 4D05-769, 4D05-859.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    April 19, 2006.

      Les Stracher and Shawn L. Birken of Rothstein, Rosenfeldt & Adler, Fort Laud-erdale, for appellant.
    Louis J. Terminello of Terminello & Terminello, P.A., Miami, for appellee.
   MAY, J.

The defendant appeals an order denying its motion to set aside a default judgment. It argues the trial court erred when it found service of process to have been proper and that there was no excusable neglect. It further argues the court erred in entering the judgment because the “doc” stamps had not been paid. We disagree with the defendant and affirm, but write to address the service of process issue.

The defendant argues service of process was improper because the defendant’s registered agent resigned prior to service of the complaint. As the trial court properly found, the registered agent “attempted” to resign, but failed to follow the Division’s requirements for resignation as a registered agent.

On March 1, 2004, the registered agent Rose sent a notice of resignation along with payment for the filing to the Division of Corporations (Division). The Division deposited the check. On March 15, 2004, the Division returned the form to the defendant, not the registered agent, indicating that Rose had used an improper resignation form and the resignation notice could not be filed. The Division enclosed the proper form. On April 29, 2004, the plaintiff served the complaint on Rose as the registered agent.

As the plaintiff argues, the evidence presented to the trial court at the hearing on the motion to set aside the default established that Rose had not properly resigned as the defendant’s registered agent at the time that service of process was made. The defendant’s annual uniform business report to the Division filed on July 24, 2004, three months after service of process, continued to list Rose as the defendant’s “currently registered agent.” And, the Division’s records continued to show Rose as the registered agent until July 26, 2004.

Here, the registered agent’s attempt to resign was simply insufficient to terminate his position as the corporation’s registered agent. Therefore, the trial court’s finding of proper service is supported by the record. As there is no abuse of discretion, we affirm. Solmo v. Friedman, 909 So.2d 560, 564 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)

Affirmed.

STONE and GROSS, JJ., concur.

      . This is a consolidated appeal from a non-final and a final order. For purposes of this opinion, we have consolidated the issues without reference to the separately filed appeals.


author: SHAHOOD, J.

text:
    Robert T. BAKER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D04-4201.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    April 19, 2006.

      Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Tatjana Ostapoff, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
    Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Georgina Jimenez-Orosa, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.
   SHAHOOD, J.

We affirm appellant’s, Robert Baker, conviction following a trial by jury. Appellant was charged with aggravated stalking, burglary of a conveyance with battery, throwing a deadly missile into a vehicle, and aggravated assault. The jury found appellant guilty of burglary of a conveyance, a lesser included offense to the burglary of a conveyance with battery charge.

The judgment entered by the trial court reads that appellant was tried and found guilty of “Burglary Conv/Batt,” meaning burglary of a conveyance with battery. Appellee acknowledges, and we agree, that the case should be remanded to correct this scrivener’s error in the judgment to reflect that the jury found appellant guilty of burglary of a conveyance. See Valle v. State, 756 So.2d 218 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). Appellant must not be present to correct this scrivener’s error.

Affirmed; Remanded with Directions.

POLEN and KLEIN, JJ., concur.


author: CANADY, Judge.

text:
    Samuel H. WIGFALS, Petitioner, v. James R. McDONOUGH, Interim Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, and Florida Parole Commission, Respondents.
    No. 2D05-5718.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    April 19, 2006.
    Samuel H. Wigfals, pro se.
    Bradley R. Bischoff, Assistant General Counsel for Respondent Florida Parole Commission.
    No appearance for Respondent James R. McDonough.
   CANADY, Judge.

As the Florida Parole Commission concedes in this certiorari proceeding, the circuit court erred in denying Wigfals’ petition for writ of habeas corpus prior to expiration of the time afforded for him to reply to the Commission’s response. See McCarthy v. Fla. Parole Comm’n, 889 So.2d 1018 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005); Minott v. State, 718 So.2d 381 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998); Bard v. Wolson, 687 So.2d 254 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). We therefore grant the cer-tiorari petition and quash the order denying the writ of habeas corpus. The trial court is instructed to allow Wigfals twenty days to file a reply to the Commission’s response before granting or denying the writ.

Petition granted.

NORTHCUTT and STRINGER, JJ., Concur.


text:
    CITY OF SANIBEL, David Gomberg, and Francine Gomberg, Petitioners, v. Steve MAXWELL and Catherine T. Maxwell, husband and wife; Jordan Fairman and Adrien Rothschild, husband and wife; Roxanne Olevsky and Paul Dibenedetto, husband and wife; and Fay Matthews, Respondents.
    No. 2D05-3622.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    April 19, 2006.

      Kenneth B. Cuyler, City Attorney, City of Sanibel, Sanibel, for Petitioners City of Sanibel.
    Clayton W. Crevasse of Roetzel & An-dress, LPA, Fort Myers, for Petitioners David Gomberg and Francine Gomberg.
    Melville G. Brinson, III, of Adams, Feichthaler & Brinson, St. James City, for Respondents.
   PER CURIAM.

The petitioners, the City of Sani-bel, David Gomberg, and Francine Gom-berg, seek to prohibit the trial court from further entertaining jurisdiction on the claims asserted by the respondents, Steve Maxwell, Catherine T. Maxwell, Jordan Fairman, Adrien Rothschild, Roxanne Olevsky, Paul Dibenedetto, and Fay Matthews. The petitioners correctly assert that the trial court exceeded its subject matter jurisdiction in entering an order granting leave to the respondents to file a second amended complaint. They seek a writ of prohibition to curtail any further proceedings in this case (trial court case no. 02-13281-CA-JC). We grant prohibition and direct the trial court to quash the order permitting the filing of the second amended complaint.

These parties have been involved in a number of proceedings concerning a new house in Sanibel which is owned by the Gombergs. It appears that the respondents, identifying themselves as property owners of improved parcels near or adjacent to the Gombergs’ house, began their efforts to prevent the Gombergs from building the house either prior to or during its construction. They challenged the Gombergs’ application for a variance necessary to build the house, and when the City granted the variance, they pursued an administrative appeal of that decision without success. After exhausting their administrative remedies, they filed an amended complaint with the circuit court challenging the grant of the variance and seeking injunctive and declaratory relief. The City and the Gombergs moved to dismiss the amended complaint, in significant part, because the challenge to the City’s grant of the variance was not appropriate for suit but rather could only be reviewed by the circuit court in a certiorari proceeding.

The trial court granted dismissal “without prejudice to the plaintiffs [the respondents herein] to seek relief in an original Petition for Writ of Certiorari.” The order of dismissal was filed August 19, 2003, and no appeal was taken from that order. The respondents then sought a writ of certiorari in a separate proceeding but subsequently withdrew their objection to the grant of the variance and agreed to a denial of their request for the writ of certiorari. Thereafter, in May 2005, they filed a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint in the original lawsuit, case no. 02-13281-CA-JC. They argued, in part, that their lawsuit did not involve merely a challenge to the request for a variance but also encompassed other claims. The trial court determined that it had jurisdiction and granted their motion.

The petitioners assert that the trial court did not have jurisdiction to enter the order granting leave to file a second amended complaint because the lawsuit had been resolved by the August 2003 order of dismissal filed almost two years before the filing of the respondents’ motion for leave to file the second amended complaint. Although the trial court’s determination that it had jurisdiction is understandable, under the unique circumstances in this case we cannot agree with its conclusion.

Various attorneys have represented these parties concerning the disputes. At the time the motions to dismiss were considered, the amended complaint appeared to involve a single issue — the grant of the variance. Only after the order of dismissal was entered and the certiorari proceeding had concluded did the respondents’ counsel suggest that this case involved not only a challenge to the grant of a variance but other claims as well. The August 2003 order was not a partial dismissal of the claims asserted in the amended complaint. Rather, it granted dismissal without prejudice to seek the appropriate relief — certio-rari review of the quasi-judicial decision made by the local zoning authority. The August 2003 order marked an end to judicial labor in the original case. Thus, the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to grant the motion allowing the respondents to file a second amended complaint notwithstanding their argument that the August 2003 order dismissed only one of several claims.

Accordingly, prohibition is hereby granted. The trial court is directed to quash the order granting leave to file a second amended complaint. We assume it will not be necessary to issue the writ.

Prohibition granted with directions.

SALCINES and LaROSE, JJ., and THREADGILL, EDWARD F., Senior Judge, Concur.

      . We caution that prohibition should not be sought merely to revoke an order already entered. As explained in English v. McCrary, 348 So.2d 293, 296-97 (Fla.1977):
      Prohibition may only be granted when it is shown that a lower court is without jurisdiction or attempting to act in excess of jurisdiction. It is preventive and not corrective in that it commands the one to whom it is directed not to do the thing which the supervisory court is informed the lower tribunal is about to do. Its purpose is to prevent the doing of something, not to compel the undoing of something already done. It cannot be used to revoke an order already entered.
      Nonetheless, because prohibition is proper in this matter, we have authority to direct the trial court to quash the order which was entered in excess of its jurisdiction. See City of St. Petersburg v. Circuit Court of Sixth Judicial Circuit, 422 So.2d 18 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982). In City of St. Petersburg, this court considered a petition for writ of prohibition seeking relief similar to that sought by the petitioners in this case, granted prohibition, and directed the trial court to quash the "purported order” which had permitted the filing of an amendment to a complaint. This court determined that the trial court no longer had subject matter jurisdiction in light of a prior final order and stated: "When a court’s jurisdiction over the subject matter is terminated, prohibition is the proper remedy to prevent further action from being taken.” Id. at 19.

      . Their initial pro se complaint did not specify separate claims for injunctive and declaratory relief as did the amended complaint, which was filed by counsel.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Anthony G. ST. JOHN v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2005-KH-1725.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 17, 2005.
   In re St. John, Anthony G.;—Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Rapides, 9th Judicial District Court Div. B, Nos. 269325, 269452; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KH 05-00428.

Writ granted in part; otherwise denied. If it has not done so already, the district court is ordered to supply relator with a copy of his guilty plea colloquy transcript. State ex rel. Simmons v. State, 93-0275 (La.12/16/94), 647 So.2d 1094. In all other respects, the application is denied. State ex rel. Bernard v. Cr.D.C., 94-2247, p. 1 (La.4/28/95), 653 So.2d 1174, 1175.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Kenneth EDWARDS.
    No. 2006-KD-0469.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 7, 2006.
   In re Hines, Donald Senator;—Other; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. K, No. 463-200; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2006-K-0199.

Writ granted in part. Acting pursuant to this Court’s supervisory jurisdiction based on La. Const. Art. V, section 5, the return date on the subpoenas is indefinitely extended until a motion to quash the subpoenas can be heard and any appellate review is completed. The matter is remanded to the trial court.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Joseph BEAN.
    No. 2005-K-1106.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 8, 2006.
   In re Bean, Joseph;—Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. I, No. 11-01-544; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2004 KA 1527.

Granted. Considering that the sentences actually imposed are for terms of five years or less, defendant is entitled to post-conviction bail as a matter of La. C.Cr.P. art. 332(A). The district court is accordingly directed to fix post-conviction bail.

TRAYLOR, J., would deny.


text:
    N. Gene DICKERSON v. CAJUN COMMUNICATIONS OF TEXAS, INC.
    No. 2005-C-2267.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 8, 2006.
   In re Cajun Communications of Texas, Inc.;—Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 479-481-A; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 40,026-CA.

Denied.


text:
    Lori Williams BICKHAM v. Ewell Dewitt BICKHAM.
    No. 2006-CJ-0391.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 8, 2006.
   In re Bickham, Lori Williams;—Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of East Feliciana, 20th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 33,151; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2005 CU 0789.

Denied.


text:
    Randolph P. GROS v. CHEVRON CHEMICAL CORP., et al.
    No. 2006-CC-0429.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 8, 2006.
   In re Gros, Randolph P.;—Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. A, No. 2000-6783; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2006-C-0088.

Denied.


text:
    Eric SOILEAU v. James LANTY, IGT, Inc., et al.
    No. 2006-CC-0499.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 8, 2006.
   In re Soileau, Eric;—Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Calcasieu, 14th Judicial District Court Div. H, No. 2004-4737; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CW 06-00188.

Denied.


text:
    Rita PATIN v. Craig S. LANDRY, DDS, Ass. and Dental Hygenist.
    No. 2005-CC-2260.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 9, 2006.
   In re Patin, Rita;—Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Lafayette, 15th Judicial District Court Div. F, No. 2003 6510; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CW 05-00444.

Deny motion for reconsideration of denial of second request for extension of time to supplement; deny writ.


text:
    Harold LASSERRE, Jr. v. LOUISIANA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION.
    No. 2005-C-1866.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 10, 2006.
   In re Louisiana Public Service Commission;—Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review Department of State Civil Service, No. S-15058; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2004 CA 0615.

Granted.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Amanda M. GUTWEILER a/k/a Amanda Hypes.
    No. 2005-KK-2107.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 10, 2006.
   In re State of Louisiana;—Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Rapides, 9th Judicial District Court Div. G, No. 265,037; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KW 05-00822.

Granted.


text:
    Christy SALVANT, Individually, and as Natural Tutrix of her Minor Son, Shawn Lewis, Jr. and Shawn Lewis, Sr. v. STATE of Louisiana, the Board of Supervisors of Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College, Louisiana State University Medical Center at New Orleans Medical Center of Louisiana at New Orleans, et al.
    No. 2005-C-2126.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 10, 2006.
   In re Louisiana State of et al.; Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center; Shobeiri, Abas Dr.; Medical Center of Louisiana at New Orleans; Louisiana State University Medical Center at New Orleans; Louisiana State University & Agricultural & Mechanical College; University Hospital Campus; Meadors, Bernadette Dr.; Javate, Emanuel Dr.; — Defendant(s); Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. I, No. 2001-3591; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2004-CA-0805.

Granted.


text:
    LOUISIANA LANDSCAPE SPECIALTY d/b/a Louisiana Landscape Garden Center v. HODGES CONSTRUCTION CO., INC. and Botanica Property Partners, L.L.C. and the Travelers Insurance Company.
    No. 2005-CC-2323.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 10, 2006.
   In re Hodges Construction Co. Inc.;— Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. H, No. 2000-15677; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2005 CW 1260.

Granted. The case is remanded to the trial court for reconsideration of its ruling in light of Carter v. Duhe, 05-0390 (La.1/19/06), 921 So.2d 963.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Fairade’ DORSEY.
    No. 2006-KH-0345.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 10, 2006.
   In re Dorsey, Fairade’; — Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. D, No. 456639;

Granted for the sole purpose of transferring the pleading to the district court for its consideration. The district court is directed to provide this Court with a copy of its ruling.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Tyrone SHANNON.
    No. 2006-KH-0349.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 10, 2006.
   In re Shannon, Tyrone; — Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. E, No. 0.

Granted for the sole purpose of transferring the pleading to the district court for its consideration. The district court is directed to provide this Court with a copy of its ruling.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Cheasly D. HOLLOWAY.
    No. 2006-KH-0378.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 10, 2006.
   In re Holloway, Cheasly D.; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Bernard, 34th Judicial District Court Div. D, No. None.

Granted for the sole purpose of transferring the pleading to the district court for its consideration. The district court is directed to provide this Court with a copy of its ruling.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Rene S. DUBARRY v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2005-KH-0321.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 10, 2006.
   In re Dubarry, Rene S.; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. J, Nos. 354148, 354149; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2004 KW 1934.

Writ granted in part; otherwise denied; case remanded to the district court. The district court is ordered to appoint counsel and hold a hearing at which it will determine whether the face of the pleadings shows that relator’s convictions violate double jeopardy principles. United States v. Broce, 488 U.S. 563, 109 S.Ct. 757, 102 L.Ed.2d 927 (1989); State v. Arnold, 01-1399 (La.4/12/02), 816 So.2d 289. In all other respects the application is denied.


text:
    In re Jack P.F. GREMILLION, Jr.
    No. 2005-OB-2163.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 10, 2006.
   In re Jack P.F. Gremillion, Jr.; — Applying for Rehearing of this Court’s order dated January 13, 2006, Findings and Recommendations (Readmission).

Rehearing denied.


text:
    Alvie MAGEE v. SOUTHERN WOOD, INC., et al.
    No. 2003-C-2673.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 10, 2006.
   In re Magee, Alvie; — Plaintiffs); Applying for Reconsideration of this Court’s order dated December 10,2003; Parish of Tangipahoa, 21st District Court Div. A, No. 9903791; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2002-CA-2076.

Reconsideration denied.

WEIMER, J., recused.


text:
    Ursula and Edward James TUCKER v. Jerry W. SULLIVAN, M.D.
    No. 2005-C-2265.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 10, 2006.
   In re Tucker, Ursula et al.; Tucker, Edward James; — Plaintiffs); Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. B, No. 93-11691; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2004-CA-1715.

Not considered. Untimely. See S.Ct. Rule X, section 5.


author: WEIMER, J.,

text:
    Alicia Brown TODD v. Pat Shelby TODD, Jr.
    No. 2005-CJ-2377.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 10, 2006.
   In re Todd, Pat Shelby Jr. Defendant(S); Applying for Reconsideration of this Court’s order dated December 16,-2005; Parish of Iberville, 18th District Court Div. A, No. 53,734; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2005-CU-0656.

Reconsideration granted. Writ denied.

VICTORY, J., would grant on attorney-fees.

WEIMER, J.,

I would grant regarding the evidentiary burden related to the issue of the amount of attorney fees. See La. R.S. 9:367.1 would otherwise deny.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Edward SCOTT, Jr. v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2005-KH-1266.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 10, 2006.
   In re Scott, Edward Jr.,; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. I, No. 4-02-366; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2004-KA-0213.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Tracy PARKER v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2005-KH-1412.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 10, 2006.
   In re Parker, Tracy; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. J, No. 344-592; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2005-K-0150.

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. Simon MONTGOMERY v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2005-KH-1446.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 10, 2006.
   In re Montgomery, Simon; — -Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 95-5903; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 05-KH-344.

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. Jerome HULBERT v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2005-KH-1447.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 10, 2006.
   In re Hulbert, Jerome; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. I, No. 417-085; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2004-K-2184.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. D’Andre MOORE v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2005-KH-1452.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 10, 2006.
   "In re Moore, D’andre; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. J, No. 414-972; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2005-K-0457.

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. Jamal J. KALI v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2005-KH-1453.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 10, 2006.
   In re Kali, Jamal J.; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. G, No. 00-982; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 05-KH-334.

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. Rudolph V. WILLIAMS v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2005-KH-1454.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 10, 2006.
   In re Williams, Rudolph V.; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, 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.

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.

JOHNSON, J., would grant.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Johnny Ray MADISON v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2005-KH-1465.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 10, 2006.
   In re Madison, Johnny Ray; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 187,647; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 40012-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. Wayne JOHNSON, II v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2005-KH-1466.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 10, 2006.
   In re Johnson, Wayne II.,; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Ouachita, 4th Judicial District Court Div. H, No. 98-F0279; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 39986-KH.

Denied. State v. McKinney, 406 So.2d 160, 161 (La.1981).


text:
    STATE ex rel. Clyde E. KING v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2005-KH-1467.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 10, 2006.
   In re King, Clyde E.; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Vernon, 30th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 55122; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KH 05-00235.

Denied. See State v. Gedric, 99-1213 (La. App 1st Cir 6/3/99), 741 So.2d 849.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Joe TUBBS v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2005-KH-1472.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 10, 2006.
   In re Tubbs, Joe; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 78,385.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Roland SCOTT v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2005-KH-1473.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 10, 2006.
   In re Scott, Roland; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Calcasieu, 14th Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 2389-97; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KH 05-00044.

Denied. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8; State ex rel. Glover v. State, 93-2330 (La.9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189; cf. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4(D).


text:
    STATE ex rel. Terry SMITH v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2005-KH-1474.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 10, 2006.
   In re Smith, Terry; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. James, 23rd Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 2674; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 05-KH-345.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Mark J. HAYLOCK v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2005-KH-1475.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 10, 2006.
   In re Haylock, Mark J.; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 03-5307; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 05-KH-333.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Robert Shelton TOOMER, Jr. v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2005-KH-1476.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 10, 2006.
   In re Toomer, Robert Shelton Jr.;— Plaintiff; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Washington, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. I, No. 02 CR9 85062; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2004 KA 1603.

Denied.


text:
    Oliver SUMBLER v. O.K. ANDREWS, Warden; Priscilla Pitre, Record Analyst; Richard Stalder, Secretary, Department of Public Safety & Corrections and State of Louisiana.
    No. 2005-CI-1477.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 10, 2006.
   In re Sumbler, Oliver; — Plaintiff; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. J, No. 497,519; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2004-CA-0208.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Theo ALLEN v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2005-KH-1478.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 10, 2006.
   In re Allen, Theo; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Calcasieu, 14th Judicial District Court Div. H, No. 5207-95; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KH 05-00219.

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. Robert C. BROADWAY v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2005-KH-1532.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 10, 2006.
   In re Broadway, Robert C.; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Red River, 39th Judicial District Court Div. 0, No. 39794; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 40061-KH.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. David L. CARR v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2005-KH-1533.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 10, 2006.
   In re Carr, David L.; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. J, No. 7-86-635; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2004-KW-2619.

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. Kerry MYERS v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2005-KH-1534.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 10, 2006.
   In re Myers, Kerry; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. K, No. 87-3280; to the Court' of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 05-KH-464.

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. Keith Lynn BARNES v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2005-KH-1535.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 10, 2006.
   In re Barnes, Keith Lynn; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Ouachita, 4th Judicial District Court Div. G, No. 00-F1216; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No(s). 38625-KH, 39433-KH, 39787-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. Bobby TERRICK v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2005-KH-1537.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 10, 2006.
   In re Terrick, Bobby; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 01-4723; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 05-KH-385.

Denied. Repetitive. La.C.Cr.P. art 930.4(A).


text:
    STATE ex rel. Ruben ANDERSON v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2005-KH-1539.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 10, 2006.
   In re Anderson, Ruben;' — -Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. I, No. 443-293; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2004-KA-1905.

Denied.

CALOGERO, C.J., recused.


text:
    STATE ex rel. William BIRTHA v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2005-KH-1540.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 10, 2006.
   In re Birtha, William; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. I, No. 97-6381; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 05-KH-443.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Brian Del ALCAZAR v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2005-KH-1541.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 10, 2006.
   In re Alcazar, Brian Del; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. F, No. 97-4642; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No(s). 04-KH-192, 04-KH-631, 05-KH-352.

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. Kenneth WATSON v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2005-KH-1583.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 10, 2006.
   In re Watson, Kenneth; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th- Judicial District Court Div. J, No. 98-4283; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 05-KH-382.

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. Deron BROOKS v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2005-KH-1609.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 10, 2006.
   In re Brooks, Deron; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. L, No. 1-01-42; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2004 KA 0012.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Phillip CAIN v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2005-KH-1611.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 10, 2006.
   In re Cain, Phillip; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 8-95-1995; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2002 KW 1113.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Ryan BURNS v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2005-KH-1613.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 10, 2006.
   In re Burns, Ryan; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. C, No. 416-286; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2004-K-1648.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Kerry LACOSTE v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2005-KH-1614.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 10, 2006.
   In re Lacoste, Kerry; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. F, No. 384-606; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2005-K-0452.

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. Jesse CARTER v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2005-KH-1579.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 10, 2006.
   In re Carter, Jesse; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. G, No. 344-109; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2005-K-0663.

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. Ernest LEWIS v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2005-KH-1615.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 10, 2006.
   In re Lewis, Ernest; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. F, No. 304-693; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2005-K-0487.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Norris L. GUIDRY v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2005-KH-1616.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 10, 2006.
   In re Guidry, Norris L.; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Acadia, 15th Judicial District Court Div. J, No. 63168; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KH 05-00271.

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. Aaron LAMPTON v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2005-KH-1628.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 10, 2006.
   In re Lampton, Aaron;- — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. I, No. 423-825; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2005-K-0530.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Ulysses ABADIE v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2005-KH-1629.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 10, 2006.
   In re Abadie, Ulysses; — -Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. K, No. 450-147; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2005-K-0339.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Donnielle (Donielle) BANNISTER v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2005-KH-1630.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 10, 2006.
   In re Bannister, Donnielle (Donielle),;— Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. D, No. 377-315; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2005-K-0603.

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. Jerome HULBERT v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2005-KH-1719.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 10, 2006.
   In re Hulbert, Jerome; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. I, No. 417-085; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2004-K-2184.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Robert E. JACKSON, Jr.
    No. 2005-KO-1775.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 10, 2006.
   In re Jackson, Robert E. Jr.; — Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Red River, 39th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 96,366; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 39,707-KA.

Denied.


text:
    Emiliano V. VIADA v. A & A MACHINE WORKS, INC.
    No. 2005-C-1838.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 10, 2006.
   In re A & A Machine Works, Inc. et al; Louisiana Homebuilders Association SIF;- — Defendant(s); Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review Office of Workers’ Compensation Dist. # 7, No. 03-08814; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2005-CA-0210.

Denied.


text:
    Emiliano V. VIADA v. A & A MACHINE WORKS, INC.
    No. 2005-C-1902.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 10, 2006.
   In re Viada, Emiliano V.; — Plaintiff; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review Office of Workers’ Compensation District Seven, No. 03-08814; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2005-CA-0210.

Denied.


text:
    Elridge MENARD and Pauline Menard v. FEDERATED MUTUAL INSURANCE CO., et al.
    No. 2005-C-1925.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 10, 2006.
   In re Federated Mutual Insurance Co. et al.; Aguillard, Joseph Curtis; — Defendants); Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of St. Martin, 16th Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 02-65001; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 05-85.

Denied.

CALOGERO, C.J., recused.

VICTORY, J., would grant.

TRAYLOR, J., would grant.


text:
    Connis J. BENNETT, Sr., et al. v. PARISH OF WASHINGTON, and State of Louisiana, Through the Department of Transportation and Development.
    No. 2005-C-2025.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 10, 2006.
   In re Washington, Parish of et al.;— Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiora-ri and/or Review, Parish of Washington, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. H, No. 76480; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2004 CA 1286.

Denied.

VICTORY, J., would grant.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Tony Lavelle HUNTER.
    No. 2005-K-2027.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 10, 2006.
   In re Hunter, Tony Lavelle; — Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Ouachita, 4th Judicial District Court Div. F, No. 02-F-002021; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 39,664-KA.

Denied.


text:
    Gerald Ray MIXON and Gregory Holland v. KLLM, INC., Elmer Swann, and XYZ Insurance Company.
    No. 2005-CC-2036.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 10, 2006.
   In re KLLM Inc. et al.; Swann, Elmer; — Defendant(s); Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Tangipahoa, 21st Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 2002-001242; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2005 CW 1469.

Denied.

VICTORY, J., would grant.

TRAYLOR, J., would grant.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Phillip Lee LOGAN.
    No. 2005-KO-2050.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 10, 2006.
   In re Logan, Phillip Lee; — Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 361,981; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2004 KA 1413.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Stephen L. LOEBER.
    No. 2005-KO-2051.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 10, 2006.
   In re Loeber, Stephen L.; — Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of W. Baton Rouge, 18th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 030613; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2004 KA 1627.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Lorenza C. WIGGINS.
    No. 2005-KO-2052.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 10, 2006.
   In re Wiggins, Lorenza C.; — Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 8-03-508; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2004 KA 2039.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Sherry BAILEY.
    No. 2005-K-2057.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 10, 2006.
   In re State of Louisiana; — Plaintiff; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Concordia, 7th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 03-1177; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KA 04-1571.

Denied.

TRAYLOR, J., would grant.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Robert BENJAMIN.
    No. 2005-KP-2074.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 10, 2006.
   In re Benjamin, Robert; — Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. A, No. 362-445; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2005-K-1008.

Denied.

JOHNSON, J., would grant.


text:
    STATE ex rel. John E. SPELLMAN v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2005-KH-2084.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 10, 2006.
   In re Spellman, John E.; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. G, No. 05-290; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No(s). 05-KH-500, 05-KH-574.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Tyson Deon NORRIS.
    No. 2005-KO-2095.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 10, 2006.
   In re Norris, Tyson Deon; — Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Terrebonne, 32nd Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 410.281; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2004 KA 2230.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Lucus Lorenzo WHITE a/k/a Robert Tyrone Williams.
    No. 2005-KO-2097.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 10, 2006.
   In re White, Lucas Lorenzo a/k/a; Williams, Robert Tyrone; — Defendant(s); Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Div. H, No. 230,603; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 39,634-KA.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Joseph K. SAM.
    No. 2005-K-2100.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 10, 2006.
   In re Sam, Joseph K.; — Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. M, No. 02-1667; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 05-KA-88. .

Denied.

JOHNSON, J., would grant.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Tyrone INGRAM.
    No. 2005-KO-2117.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 10, 2006.
   In re Ingram, Tyrone; — Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Terrebonne, 32nd Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 422,169; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2004 KA 1602.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Christopher Duwayne FOSTER, Jr.
    No. 2005-KO-2118.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 10, 2006.
   In re Foster, Christopher Duwayne Jr.; — Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Rap-ides, 9th Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 268384; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 05-59.

Denied.


text:
    Patricia ADELMANN-CHESTER, et al. v. John N. KENT, D.D.S., et al.
    No. 2005-CC-2225.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 10, 2006.
   In re Kent, John N. Dr. et al.; Louisiana State of; Louisiana State University; Louisiana State University School of Dentistry; — Defendant(s); Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. G, No. 98-18330; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2005-C-1024.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Romona Faye BROWN.
    No. 2005-KK-2249.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 10, 2006.
   In re Brown, Romona Faye; — Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Madison, 6th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 116341; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 40545-KW.

Denied.


text:
    Alicia Hite Wife of/and John HITE v. Jerry J. LARPENTER, Sheriff-Terrebonne Parish, the Terrebonne Parish Sheriff's Office and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company.
    No. 2005-C-2255.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 10, 2006.
   In re Hite, Alicia et al.; Hite, John;— Plaintiff(s); Applying for Writ of Certiora-ri and/or Review, Parish of Terrebonne, 32nd Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 134627; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2004 CA 1821.

Denied.


text:
    Jesse JOHNSON v. US AGENCIES CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, et al.
    No. 2005-CC-2256.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 10, 2006.
   In re Anderson, Harry; Safeway Insurance Company; — Defendant(s); Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Evangeline, 13th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 61759-B; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit,. No. CW 05-00592.

Denied.

VICTORY, J., would grant.


text:
    John LEBLANC, et al. v. IMPERIAL FIRE AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY.
    No. 2005-CC-2257.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 10, 2006.
   In Re Boudreaux & Upton, LLC; Chau-vin, Nicholas John Esq.; — Defendant(s); Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Vernon, 30th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 73072-B; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CW 05-00477.

Denied.


text:
    Carla GARNER, et al. v. GILCHRIST CONSTRUCTION COMPANY.
    No. 2005-CC-2262.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 10, 2006.
   In re Garner, Carla et ah; Smart, Virginia; Cabra, Barney; Romine, Myong Cha; Los Gallos Mexican Restaurant, Inc.;— Plaintiff(s); Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Sabine, 11th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 57742; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CW 05-00706.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Paul RICHARDSON.
    No. 2005-KK-2271.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 10, 2006.
   In re Paul Richardson; — Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 395943; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2005 KW 2165.

Denied.


text:
    SABRE COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION v. SOUTHLAND STEEL FABRICATORS, INC.
    No. 2005-C-2272.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 10, 2006.
   In re Southland Steel Fabricators Inc.; — Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of St. Helena, 21st Judicial District Court Div. H, No. 17813; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2004-CA-1875.

Denied.


text:
    Craig BRUNNER, et ux. v. LOUISIANA MOBILE HOMES, INC.
    No. 2005-CC-2276.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 10, 2006.
   In re First Financial Ins. Co.; — Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Calcasieu, 14th Judicial District Court Div. H, No. OS-2277; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CW 05-00915.

Denied.

VICTORY, J., would grant.


text:
    Mariam M. LEFEBVRE, Individually and in Her Capacity as Tutrix of Her Minor Son, Jeremy Paul Meche v. Johnny L. MATTHEWS, Johnny Matthews, Jr. and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.
    No. 2005-CC-2277.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 10, 2006.
   In re Lefebvre, Mariam M. et al.;— Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of W. Baton Rouge, 18th Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 33,279; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2005 CW 0927.

Denied.


text:
    Robert Lee BICKHAM, et al. v. METROPOLITAN INSURANCE COMPANY, et al.
    No. 2005-CC-2279.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 10, 2006.
   In re Sentry Insurance A Mutual Company; — Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Washington, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. E, Nos. 70,760, 72,154, 72,986; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2005 CW 1867.

Denied.


text:
    Janice D. Smith, Wife of and Willie G. SMITH, Jr. v. April BATTAGLIA, Christopher Battaglia, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Progressive Security Insurance Company and General Motors Corporation.
    No. 2005-CC-2280.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 10, 2006.
   In re General Motors Corporation; — Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Bernard, 34th Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 95-638; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2005-C-1114.

Denied.


text:
    Sheree MCBRIDE and Terrance Ledoux v. LOUISIANA MUNICIPAL RISK MANAGEMENT AGENCY GROUP SEL, et al.
    No. 2005-CC-2282.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 10, 2006.
   In re Scott, City of; Rivoire, Kenneth W.; — Defendant(s); Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Lafayette, 15th Judicial District Court Div. I, No. 2001-6300; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CW 05-00461.

Denied.


text:
    Brent LAMBERT v. Micah D. LAVIGNE, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, and Allstate Insurance Company.
    No. 2005-C-2283.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 10, 2006.
   In re Lambert, Brent; — Plaintiff; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 488-061; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2004 CA 1961.

Denied.


text:
    David W. DUHON v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY.
    No. 2005-CC-2286.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 10, 2006.
   In re State Farm Fire & Casualty Company; — Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Iberia, 16th Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 101170; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CW 05-01223.

Denied.


text:
    PARISH OF EAST FELICIANA through EAST FELICIANA PARISH POLICE JURY v. Jeremy Michael GUIDRY, Amber Michelle Guidry, Individually and Jeremy Guidry d/b/a Midway Motocross.
    No. 2005-C-2288.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 10, 2006.
   In re Gnidry, Jeremy Michael; Guidry, Amber Michelle; Guidry, Jeremy d/b/a; Midway Motocross; — Defendant(s); Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of East Feliciana, 20th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 32,733; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2004 CA 1197.

Denied.


text:
    Michael LACHNEY v. FERTITTA EXCAVATING CONTRACTORS, INC.
    No. 2005-CC-2293.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 10, 2006.
   In re Fertitta Excavating Contractors, Inc.; — Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs Office of Workers’ Compensation, Dist. #7, No. 04-01871; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 05-C-746.

Denied.

VICTORY, J., would grant.


text:
    Francile NELSON v. WINDMILL NURSERY OF LOUISIANA, L.L.C.
    No. 2005-C-2294.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 10, 2006.
   In re Windmill Nursery of Louisiana, L.L.C.; — Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review Office of Workers’ Compensation, Dist. #6, No. 04-04480; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2004 CA 1941.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Ivanovich HARRIS.
    No. 2005-KK-2295.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 10, 2006.
   In re Harris, Ivanovich; — Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. N, No. 06-03-0356; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2005 KW 1741.

Denied.


text:
    Johnnie PENNINGTON and Mamie Pennington v. EAST BATON ROUGE PARISH SHERIFF and East Baton Rouge Parish.
    No. 2005-C-2296.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 10, 2006.
   In re Pennington, Mamie; — Plaintiff; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 427,542; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2004 CA 1528.

Denied.


text:
    MT. HAWLEY INSURANCE COMPANY, as Subrogee of Arr-Maz Products, L.P. and Arr-Maz Products, L.P. v. ADT SECURITY SYSTEMS and Sonitrol Management Corporation and Sonitrol Management Corporation-Baton Rouge and ABC Insurance Company and DEF Insurance Company and XYZ Insurance Company.
    No. 2005-CC-2299.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 10, 2006.
   In re Sonitrol Management Corporation; — Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. James, 23rd Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 26,420; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 05-C-727.

Denied.


text:
    Lionel FIELDS and Doris Fields v. ENTERGY GULF STATES, et al.
    No. 2005-CC-2300.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 10, 2006.
   In re Imperial Premium Finance Inc.;— Third Party; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. J, First No. 504,399; to the Court of Appeal, Circuit, No. 2005 CW 1530.

Denied.

VICTORY, J., would grant.

TRAYLOR, J., would grant.


text:
    Adam SPERRY v. NATIONWIDE MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY.
    No. 2005-C-2302.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 10, 2006.
   In re Sperry, Adam; — Plaintiff; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review First City Court, No. 02-54584; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2005-CA-0185.

Denied.


text:
    Paul J. GALUSZKA v. Leonard J. CLINE.
    No. 2005-CC-2303.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 10, 2006.
   In re Cline, Leonard J.; Walton, Rose Ann; Walton, Jeffrey; — Defendant(s); Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. P, Nos. 322-619, 322-932; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 05-C-711.

Denied.


text:
    Veronica RANSOM v. PONTCHARTRAIN GUEST HOUSE, INC. d/b/a Pontchartrain Health Care Center and/ or Pontchartrain Nursing Centre and XYZ Insurance Company.
    No. 2005-CC-2308.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 10, 2006.
   In re Ransom, Veronica; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 2003-10550; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2005 CW 1444.

Denied.

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

JOHNSON, J., would grant the writ.


text:
    Sherrie HUDSON v. BEAL BANK, et al.
    No. 2005-CC-2316.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 10, 2006.
   In re Latter & Blum Property Management, Inc.; — Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 466602; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2005 CW 1289.

Denied.

VICTORY, J., would grant.


text:
    Quincy L. ADAMS, Jr., et al. v. OWENS-CORNING FIBERGLASS CORPORATION, et al.
    No. 2005-C-2318.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 10, 2006.
   In re C.V. Harold Rubber Co. Inc.;— Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiora-ri and/or Review, Parish of Iberville, 18th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 50,703; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2004 CA 1589.

Denied.


text:
    Melvin Robert SHORT v. Gloria Mae SHORT.
    No. 2005-C-2320.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 10, 2006.
   In re Short, Gloria Mae; — Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Bossier, 26th Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 41,436; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 40,-136-CA.

Denied.


text:
    N. Gene DICKERSON v. CAJUN COMMUNICATIONS OF TEXAS, INC.
    No. 2005-C-2332.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 10, 2006.
   In re Cajun Communications of Texas, Inc.; — Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 479,481-A; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 40,026-CA.

Denied.


text:
    Larry and Rosie ADAMS v. RHODIA, INC. and Exxon Corporation, et al.
    No. 2006-CC-0239.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 10, 2006.
   In re Adams, Larry; Adams, Rosie;— Plaintiff(s); Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 483,752; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2005 CW 2314.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Clyde PAYNE, Jr.
    No. 2006-KH-0346.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 10, 2006.
   In re Payne, Clyde Jr.; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. E, No. 436-776.

Denied. Moot.


text:
    In re Kathleen KAY.
    No. 2006-O-0447.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 10, 2006.
   In re Kay, Kathleen In Re; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Calcasieu, 14th Judicial District Court Div. G, No. 2006-000128.

Not considered. Application does not involve a case or controversy.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Darryl CLAYTON v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2005-KH-1538.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 10, 2006.
   In re Clayton, Darryl; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. J, No. 280-728.

Denied.


text:
    Frank M. BUCK, Jr. v. Robert L. MANARD, III, et al.
    No. 2005-CC-2230.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 13, 2006.
   In re Curtis, Lawrence N.; — Other; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. I, No. 2004-18149; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2005-C-1007.

Denied.’


text:
    Chanda Jan Covington SPINOSA v. Joseph Thomas SPINOSA.
    No. 2005-C-1935.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 17, 2006.
   In re Spinosa Class Trust; — Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, Family Court Parish of East Baton Rouge, No. 134,704; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No(s). 2004 CW 0036, 2004 CW 0038, 2004 CA 0572.

Granted. Consolidated w/ 05-C-1940.


text:
    Chanda Jan Covington SPINOSA v. Joseph Thomas SPINOSA.
    No. 2005-C-1940.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 17, 2006.
   In re Spinosa, Joseph Thomas; — Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, Family Court Parish of East Baton Rouge, No. 134,704; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No(s). 2004 CW 0038, 2004 CW 0036, 2004 CA 0572.

Granted. Consolidated with 2005-C-1935


text:
    Jason MALLETT v. Paola MCNEAL and United Services Automobile Association.
    No. 2005-CC-2289.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 17, 2006.
   In re United Services Auto. Assn.;— Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. I, No. 529,415; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2005 CW 1364.

Granted. Consolidated with 2005-CC-2322.


text:
    Charles RICHEY and Barbara Richey v. INFINITY INSURANCE COMPANY, Kameron E. Dixon and Keith Dixon.
    No. 2005-CC-2322.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 17, 2006.
   In re Infinity Insurance Company et al.; Dixon, Kameron E.; Dixon, Keith C.;— Defendant(s); Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Vernon, 30th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 72,359; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 05-00526-CW.

Granted. Consolidated with 2005-CC-2289.


text:
    Derry LABORDE, et al. v. Kirby M. PECOT, et al. Kenyawn Augustine, et al. v. New Horizon Kids Quest, IV. Inc., et al. Kenyawn Augustine, et al. v. Kirby Pecot, et al. Louis Blalock, et al. v. New Horizon Kids Quest, IV., Inc., et al.
    No. 2005-CC-2254.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 17, 2006.
   In re Laborde, Derry et al.; Augustine, Kenyawn et al.; Blalock, Louis et al.;— Plaintiff(s); Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Avo-yelles, 12th Judicial District Court Div. B, Nos. 2002-3740, 2002-3996, 2002-3997, 2002-3998; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No(s). CW 05-00285 & OTHER CON. CASES, CW 05-00304.

Denied in part, granted in part. There is no error in that portion of the court of appeal’s ruling dismissing the Tribe’s insurer(s). See La. R.S. 22:655(B). However, with respect to the defendants other than the Tribe’s insurer(s), the case is remanded to the court of appeal for reconsideration of the applicable factors under La.Code Civ. P. art. 641 in light of La. Civ.Code arts. 2323 and 2324, as interpreted in Dumas v. State, 02-0563 (La.10/15/02), 828 So.2d 530.

KIMBALL, J., recused.

KNOLL, J., recused.

JOHNSON, J., would grant.


text:
    Derry LABORDE, et al. v. Kirby M. PECOT, et al. Kenyawn Augustine, et al. v. New Horizon Kids Quest, IV, Inc., et al. Kenyawn Augustine, et al. v. Kirby M. Pecot, et al. Louis Blalock, et al. v. New Horizon Kids Quest. IV., Inc. et al.
    No. 2006-CC-0290.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 17, 2006.
   In re Laborde, Derry et al.; Augustine, Kenyawn et al.; Blalock, Louis et al.;— Plaintiffs); Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Avo-yelles, 12th Judicial District Court Div. B, Nos. 2002-3740, 2002-3996, 2002-3997, 2002-3998; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No(s). CW 05-01011, CW 05-01044, CW 05-01057.

Denied in part, granted in part. There is no error in that portion of the court of appeal’s ruling dismissing the Tribe’s insurer(s). See La. R.S. 22:655(B). However, with respect to the defendants other than the Tribe’s insurer(s), the case is remanded to the court of appeal for reconsideration of the applicable factors under La.Code Civ. P. art. 641 in light of La. Civ.Code arts. 2323 and 2324, as interpreted in Dumas v. State, 02-0563 (La.10/15/02), 828 So.2d 530.

KIMBALL, J., recused.

KNOLL, J., recused.

JOHNSON, J., would grant.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Kevin SHOLES.
    No. 2005-KP-1290.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 17, 2006.
   In re Sholes, Kevin, Applying for Rehearing of this Court’s order dated January 9, 2005; Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. E, No. 392-750; to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal, No. 2005-K-0329.

Rehearing Denied.

CALOGERO, Chief Judge, would grant.

JOHNSON, J., would grant.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Kirk BELL v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2004-KH-2622.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 17, 2006.
   In re Bell, Kirk; — Plaintiff(s); Applying for Reconsideration of this Courts order dated August 19, 2005; Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. L, No. 96-5664; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 04-KH-1118.

Reconsideration denied.


text:
    Lutgardo R. SILVA v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2005-KP-1344.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 17, 2006.
   In re Silva, Lutgardo R.;Plaintiff; Applying for Reconsideration of this Court’s action dated January 13, 2006; Parish of Jefferson, 24TH Judicial District Court, Div. L, No. 95-5112; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 04-KA-1420.

Denied.

CALOGERO, Chief Judge, would grant.


text:
    ROBINSON VENTURES, LLC v. Nathaniel DOWL, Jr. and Barbara Dowl.
    No. 2005-C-1747.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 17, 2006.
   In re Nathaniel Dowl, Jr. et al.; — Defendant (s); Applying for Reconsideration of this Courts order dated January 27, 2006; First City Court of New Orleans, No. 2004-3994; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2004-CA-2149.

Reconsideration denied.


text:
    In re John Burt KLEINPETER.
    No. 2005-OB-2194.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 17, 2006.
   In re Kleinpeter, John Burt; Applying For Reconsideration of an Order of this Court dated January 27, 2006,; Disciplinary Board-No. 04-DB-025. ■

Reconsideration Denied..


text:
    John G. AUGMAN v. Lynden BURTON.
    No. 2005-CP-1429.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 17, 2006.
   In re Augman, John G.; — Plaintiff; Applying for Reconsideration of this Court’s action dated December 16, 2005; Parish of St. Mary, 16th Judicial District Court, Div. B, No. 109,922; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2005 CW 0404.

Not considered. See Rule IX, section 6.


text:
    Raymond YOCHIM, Jr. and Craig Yochim v. METAIRIE HEALTH CARE CENTER, Living Centers-East, Inc., et al.
    No. 2005-CC-2381.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 17, 2006.
   In re Yochim, Raymond Jr. et al.; Yo-chim, Craig; — Plaintiffs); Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. L, No. 608-103; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 05-C-680.

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


text:
    N.I.D., L.P. v. The PARISH OF WEST BATON ROUGE.
    No. 2005-C-2515.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 17, 2006.
   In re N.I.D., L.P.; — Plaintiff; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of W. Baton Rouge, 18th Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 30,478; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2004 CA 1599.

Not considered, not timely filed.


text:
    Delton AUGUSTINE, Jr. v. Johnny E. GRIFFIN, et al.
    No. 2006-CC-0427.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 17, 2006.
   In re Republic Vanguard Insurance Company; — Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Avoyelles, 12th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 2004-6014; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CW 05-01515.

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


text:
    In re Marcela Maria ARROCHA.
    No. 2006-OB-0450.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 17, 2006.
   In re Arrocha, Marcela Maria; — Plaintiff; Applying for Exemption from the Citizenship & Residency Requirement for Admission to LA State Bar.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Bailey P. BORDELON v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2005-KH-1626.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 17, 2006.
   In re Borderlon, Bailey P.; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 03-2591; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 05-KH-499.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Anthony BAUMAN v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2005-KH-1631.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 17, 2006.
   In re Bauman, Anthony; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. I, No. 291-500; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2005-K-0408.

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. Chris GILKERS v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2005-KH-1632.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 17, 2006.
   In re Gilkers, Chris; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 00-3294; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 05-KH-393.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Herbert A. PIERRE, Jr. v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2005-KH-1633.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 17, 2006.
   In re Pierre, Herbert A. Jr.; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. K, No. 00 — 4859; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 05-KH-465.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Terry PIERRE v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2005-KH-1636.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 17, 2006.
   In re Pierre, Terry; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. O, No. 01-5658; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 05-KH-396. '

Denied.

JOHNSON, J., would grant.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Jonathan FOX v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2005-KH-1638.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 17, 2006.
   In re Fox, Jonathan; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Ascension, 23rd Judicial District Court Div. C, Nos. 11363, 11364; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2005 KW 0266.

Denied.

WEIMER, J., recused.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Joseph DUHON v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2005-KH-1639.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 17, 2006.
   In re Duhon, Joseph; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Lafayette, 15th Judicial District Court Div. G, No. 81921; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KH 05-00090.

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. Rodney JENKINS v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2005-KH-1641.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 17, 2006.
   In re Jenkins, Rodney; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Calcasieu, 14th Judicial District Court Div. G, No. 20102-01; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KH 05-00441.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Tim HARDY v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2005-KH-1642.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 17, 2006.
   In re Hardy, Tim; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 02-01-69; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2005W 0259.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Fred HOWARD v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2005-KH-1643.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 17, 2006.
   In re Howard, Fred; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Div. H, No. 211,477; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 39928-KH.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Harold AUGUSTINE v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2005-KH-1668.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 17, 2006.
   In re Augustine, Harold; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 214975; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No(s). 2005 KW 0617, 2005 KW 0448.

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. Leotis WEBSTER v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2005-KH-1669.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 17, 2006.
   In re Webster, Leotis; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Morehouse, 4th Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 18,500.

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


text:
    STATE ex rel. Mike SILVO v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2005-KH-1670.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 17, 2006.
   In re Silvo, Mike; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or ■ Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 286137; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2005 KW 0447.

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

WEIMER, j., recused.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Johnny R. SUMMAGE v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2005-KH-1671.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 17, 2006.
   In re Summage, Johnny R.; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 94510.

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


text:
    STATE ex rel. Troy TAYLOR v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2005-KH-1672.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 17, 2006.
   In re Taylor, Troy; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. John, 40th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 2001-90; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 4/19/05.

Denied.