author:
CALOGERO, Justice.
     MARCUS, Justice

text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Troy Normand VOLK
    No. 62787.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 5, 1979.
    Joseph T. Dalrymple, Robert L. Beck, Jr., Antoon, Dalrymple & Beck, Alexandria, for defendant-appellant.
    William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., Edwin 0. Ware, Dist. Atty., Ralph W. Kennedy, Asst. Dist. Atty., Alexandria, for plaintiff-appellee.
   CALOGERO, Justice.

Defendant, Troy Normand Volk, was convicted after a bench trial of attempted aggravated rape and was sentenced to twenty-five years imprisonment. His appeal presents twelve assignments of error for our consideration.

The record indicates that during the month of October, 1977, the defendant absented himself without permission from Brown’s School in Austin, Texas, an institution for the mentally ill to which he was sent by a Lake County, Illinois court. During the early morning hours of October 24, 1977, he accosted a maid in a room at the Travelodge Motel in Alexandria, Louisiana. Volk pointed a gun at the woman, announced, “This is a holdup”, instructed her not to scream, and assured that he would not hurt her. The woman responded that she had no money and the defendant then demanded that she remove her clothing. When the woman hesitated and attempted to dissuade him, defendant renewed his demand that the woman remove her clothing, warning, “I’m going to count to ten, if you don’t take off your clothes, I’m going to kill you, but I don’t want to hurt you.” After the woman removed her uniform Volk admonished her to hurry and approached her, grabbing her brassiere and snatching it. A scuffle over the gun ensued, during which the woman temporarily possessed the gun and attempted to shoot Volk. The gun did not fire, she lost possession of it, and Volk ultimately struck her on the head with it to prevent her from escaping from the room. Immediately thereafter, Volk left the room and effected his escape. He was apprehended shortly thereafter by a state trooper and this prosecution ensued.

We have determined in connection with our consideration of various assignments that a remand to the trial court is required for reconsideration of the ruling holding admissible a confession made by Volk for the reason that it appears the trial judge applied the wrong burden of proof and failed to apply the correct standard in determining the confession’s free and voluntary character. In the event the trial judge determines anew that the confession is admissible we require that he reconsider the twenty-five year sentence and comply with the requirements of Code of Criminal Procedure article 894.1, which mandate a statement for the record of the considerations taken into account in imposing sentence and the factual basis therefor. As will be explained hereinafter, this compliance will facilitate our review of defendant’s claim of an excessive sentence, should further review be sought.

The remand to the trial court for re-examination of the issue of the admissibility of Volk’s confession in light of the correct burden of proof and the appropriate standards for determination of its free and voluntary nature is especially compelled by the fact that the record reveals substantial evidence supporting the defense view that Volk’s confession was not freely and voluntarily given. In preparation for the admission of the rights waiver form Volk executed and the confession he made, the state presented the testimony of the juvenile officer to whom Volk confessed. After the state announced that it had no further foundation evidence to offer on the issue of admissibility, the defense presented the testimony of a psychiatrist, Dr. Marvin Schwartz. Dr. Schwartz told the court that he had previously diagnosed Volk as a chronic schizophrenic on the basis of living with him for six months at a Chicago hospital. Schwartz testified that Volk experienced periods of decompensation and such things as hallucinations, paranoid states, disassociative states and confusional states on a transient and episodic basis but that “ . . . basic defects in judgment, the inability to establish causal relationships, the poor reality testing, the tangential thinking and the withdrawal into fantasy” did tend, in his opinion based on his six months’ contact, to be permanent aspects of Volk, “with very little fluctuation.”

The doctor related that Volk was extremely susceptible to adult male authority figures and, prompted by a strong desire to please, would do whatever he perceived would achieve that result. The psychiatrist testified that this impulse was especially evoked by psychiatrists, social workers or probation and juvenile officers, “ . all of whom he has been dealing with for years in Lake County, in very positive supportive relationships. . . . ” Asked to say whether the juvenile officer’s kind treatment of Volk could have further obscured his perceptions insofar as an understanding of the ramifications of waiving his rights was concerned, and requested to comment on Volk’s ability in these circumstances to rationally understand the consequences of waiver, Dr. Schwartz opined that Volk would not have understood consequences to the extent that the rights would have any meaning to him. Asked to state his opinion with regard to Volk’s ability to freely and voluntarily waive his rights on the date of the confession, October 24,1977, Dr. Schwartz, notwithstanding he had not treated the defendant for six weeks, stated that there was every reason to believe the illness was stable, rather than phasic, since the nature of Volk’s illness was chronic. Therefore, it was his belief that most probably Volk’s psychological state was the same as it had been at the time of their last contact.

During cross-examination by the state, Dr. Schwartz stated his belief that Volk could not understand the constitutional rights which Miranda requires the custodial interrogator to communicate, and on redirect, asked to compare in light of the existing circumstances defendant’s understanding of the consequences of waiving his rights to the comprehension one would expect of a normal person his age, Schwartz characterized Volk as “[ejxtremely less able” to understand and stated: “If I had to put it in percentile I’d say less than one percent.”

The following excerpts from the state’s cross-examination of Dr. Schwartz summarize his views:

. [Tjhe issue is not his intellectual understanding but his mental illness. His mental illness is what prevents him— the question of whether in an abstract level, if it had no meaning to him, he could conceptually understand may be one thing. What we are dealing with here is that given the circumstances where these things are relative to what happens to him, he operates in terms of his illness, rather than appreciation of conceptual material. This is what I am saying.
Q. Well, let me ask you, if I understand you correctly, if you told him you have a right to remain silent, he would understand it at that point?
A. Yes.
Q. And if you said “Now, we’d like you to make a statement.” he bubbled [sic]?
A. That’s right.
Q. But he still understood before you started that he had a right to -remain silent?
A. To start with, yes.
Q. Does he understand the statement that “Anything that you say can be used against you in a court of law.”?
A. I think you’d have — I don’t know how it was explained. For example, his idea of a court of law in Indiana was a place where they were very good to him and the court paid for his treatment at Oaks School, and sent him to us. So the question becomes one that unless he understood what the implications were, whether he was to be tried as a child or an adult, what was going on, I’m not sure he could understand. It depends how things were done and how they were explained.
Q. So, he does have a fairly good comprehension of the English language?
A. Yes, sir. Conceptually, he could understand, if it were done — but on the other hand, to carry from that to his right not to respond, deals not only with the conceptually understanding but with the relationship to his behavior. What I am saying is, reading to him that he has a right to remain silent, doesn’t mean he understands he really has the right to remain silent if someone asks him a question.
♦ * * 5}C * #
Q. He could understand it and what you are saying is that it just doen’t make any — just doesn’t really make any difference to him?
A. That’s right. Yes, sir.
Q. He can understand it?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. But it just wouldn’t make any difference to him?
A. Yes, sir, that’s what I’m saying. He doesn’t operate in terms of things like that. He operates in terms of what people tell him to do.

Juxtaposed with Schwartz’ testimony is that of Dr. Culpepper, who was called by the state to rebut the testimony of the defense witnesses. Culpepper, who was named to the sanity commission appointed by the court, had examined Volk ten days after the commission of the offense for a period of approximately one and one-half to two hours. His examination, which included an intelligence quotient test for thirty minutes of the examination period, led to his conclusion that defendant was not psychotic; rather, he determined that Volk was a mentally average person who had an antisocial personality. Dr. Culpepper opined that Volk had the mental capacity to understand the rights set forth on the waiver form exhibited to him; the doctor responded negatively when asked if he perceived anything in the defendant’s personality which would render him particularly susceptible to the influence of male authority figures. There is no significant area of ■ agreement insofar as the assessments of the two psychiatrists are concerned.

Considering the seriousness of the dispute between the state and the defense regarding the voluntariness vel non of defendant’s waiver and confession, the application of the proper burden of proof to the correct party assumes paramount importance. This Court has repeatedly recognized the code and statutory requirement that the state affirmatively show a confession was freely and voluntarily given, and not made under the influence of fear, duress, intimidation, menaces, threats, inducements or promises. C.Cr.P. art. 703; R.S. 15:451. It is equally well established that the burden of proof which the prosecution bears is to establish beyond a reasonable doubt the freeness and voluntariness of the confession. State v. Glover, 343 So.2d 118 (La.1977). The Glover case recognized that in a situation where admissibility is the issue, the crucial question is “ . whether [the defendant] suffered from a mental illness or defect which, under the circumstances, prevented his statements from being voluntary.” State v. Glover, supra, at 128.

The following record excerpt reflecting the colloquy which took place at the close of evidence on the issue of admissibility engenders our doubt that the correct burden of proof was placed on the proper party:

BY THE COURT: Well, let’s see, believe he has the burden of proof on it, so if he wants to go first, we’ll let him.
* * * * * *
BY DEFENSE COUNSEL: Your Hon- or, I don’t feel certain that we have the burden of proof.
* • * * * * *
[M]y position [is] that the State has the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt under these circumstances. .
######
BY THE COURT: Well, you certainly can argue that and the Court will give due consideration to it, but I am just trying to determine whether or not who’s going to close. The State apparently was ready to to and I felt like it was your privilege to go first.

The state and the defense argued the admissibility issue to the court; immediately thereafter the court ruled admissible the confession and the rights waiver without further reference to the burden of proof. The possibility that the court imposed upon the wrong party the burden of proving the free and voluntary nature vel non of the confession or imposed the wrong burden (for example, any burden other than proof beyond a reasonable doubt) compels us to remand this case to the district court for a determination anew on the admissibility issue insofar as that issue is affected by the free and voluntary character of Yolk’s confession.

In connection with this determination on remand, the district court is likewise to consider in reaching its decision whether Volk was “ . . . aware not only of his rights, but also of the consequences of foregoing them, that he knew he was faced with a phase of the adversary system, and that he was aware that he was not in the presence of persons acting solely in his interest.” State in the Interest of Dino, 359 So.2d 586, 591 (La.1978), accord, Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 469, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 1625, 16 L.Ed.2d 694, 721 (1966).

The “totality of the circumstances” test applicable to this case (the trial of which commenced on March 13, 1978, before the effective date of Dino) requires a showing that the accused who confessed possessed an awareness of all of those realities to which Miranda specifically refers. Yet the trial court’s stated reasons for ruling Volk’s confession admissible indicates that there may not have been a proper consideration of these factors: “You can put it in whatever terms you want to; he can’t appreciate it; he can’t relate it to whatever you want to, the fact that he has a blank as to the consequences doesn’t necessarily mean that what he has to say when you ask him to make a statement is not voluntary.”

The power to grant a new trial is reserved to the trial judge should he determine the confession is inadmissible after considering the issue of the statement’s free and voluntary nature in light of the foregoing. If. the trial judge determines after again considering the issue that the confession is admissible the defendant is granted the right to appeal that determination; in the absence of such an appeal the conviction will be affirmed.

The other assignment of error which focuses the court’s attention on the need for remand is that which complains that the twenty-five year sentence imposed is excessive. At the time the sentence was imposed, the defense objected, urging its ex-cessiveness under the circumstances of the case. In State v. Sepulvado, 367 So.2d 762 (La.1979) we held that exeessiveness is a question of law reviewable under our appellate jurisdiction. However, in the instant case, we are unable to undertake a review of the sentence to judge excessiveness. The trial judge did not in the instant case articulate the considerations he weighed and did not state the factual basis for those considerations in determining to impose the twenty-five year sentence; nor does the record reflect a consideration of the factors enumerated in Article 894.1. We determined in Sepulvado, supra, that in reviewing exces-siveness we would utilize the guidelines set forth in Article 894.1. In the event the confession . is ruled admissible, the trial judge, in reconsidering the question of an appropriate sentence, is required to state the considerations taken into account when determining the length of the sentence to be imposed, and set forth the factual basis therefor; the factors enumerated in Article 894.1 should be addressed to facilitate this Court’s review of excessiveness. The right to appeal the sentence imposed on remand is reserved to defendant.

We find all the other assignments of error wholly without merit.

Decree

Accordingly, the case is remanded to the district court for proceedings in accordance with this opinion.

REMANDED.

SUMMERS, C. J., and CULPEPPER, J., dissent.

MARCUS, J., dissents in part and concurs in part and assigns reasons.

MARCUS, Justice

(dissenting in part and concurring in part).

I dissent from the remand to determine anew the admissibility of defendant’s confession. After hearing the conflicting testimony of the psychiatrists, the trial judge determined that defendant’s confession was free and voluntary after having been advised of his Miranda rights. Hence, he admitted the confession in evidence. While the state has the burden of showing that a confession was free and voluntary and not made.under the influence of fear, duress, intimidation, etc. (La.R.S. 15:451) and this showing must be closely scrutinized on appellate review in the case of a juvenile based on the totality of the circumstances, a defendant is nonetheless presumed “sane and responsible for his actions.” La.R.S. 15:432. Based on the evidence presented, I am unable to say the trial judge erred in admitting the confession in evidence.

I concur in the remand for the trial judge to comply with La.Code Crim.P. art. 894.1 (sentence guidelines).

I disagree that this court has a right to review the sentence in a particular case for excessiveness. See my dissent in State v. Sepulvado, 367 So.2d 762 (La.1979).

Accordingly, I dissent in part and concur in part.

       Chief Judge William A. Culpepper participated . in this decision as Associate Justice Ad Hoc sitting in the place of Chief Justice Sanders, retired.

      . The record on appeal contains fifteen assignments of error. However, three of those assignments, having been neither briefed nor argued, are considered abandoned.

      . Defense witness, Dr. Schwartz was questioned on cross-examination about the possibility of diagnosing a latent schizophrenic as an antisocial personality, based on the similarities in symptoms. He explained that a diagnosis is not achieved “on the basis of that which is transmitted in an hour interview, but on the basis of the life experience. . . . ” Schwartz explained: “Unless one lives with him and appreciates the judgmental things in real stress situations, for example, I would think one might well come with the more superficial diagnosis. This does not mean the other individual is incorrect. It merely means its a diagnosis in less depth.”

      .The defense strenuously urged the applicability of the holding in State in the Interest of Dino, supra, which required as a prerequisite to a finding of admissibility of a juvenile’s confession a showing that the juvenile actually consulted with an attorney or an adult before waiving his rights, that the person consulted was interested in the juvenile’s welfare, or that, if an adult other than an attorney was consulted, the adult was fully advised of the juvenile’s rights. We have held, however, that Dino is to be applied only to those cases in which the trial began after June 15, 1978. State v. Collum, 365 So.2d 1272 (La.1978).

      . In remanding the case without presently affirming or reversing the conviction, we conform to the procedure employed in State v. Simmons, 328 So.2d 149 (La.1976). See State v. Lawson, 359 So.2d 964 (La.1978).

      . We note that by our decision this date in State v. Cox, 369 So.2d 118 (La.1979), we overruled those cases which made a formal objection urging excessiveness of the sentence a prerequisite to our appellate review of exces-siveness, holding that the issue is properly presented when raised by assignment of error to this Court. See also State v. Terriault, 369 So.2d 125 (La.1979).

      . Defendant urged on appeal eight assignments in addition to those treated in the Court’s opinion. The substance of the assignments are as follows:
      4. The court erred in denying defendant’s motion for judgment of acquittal.
      6. The court erred in refusing to sustain defendant’s objection to prejudicial questioning of a defense witness by the state.
      7. The court erred in overruling a defense objection to the state’s inquiry of defendant’s mother as to her opinion with regard to keeping defendant “off of the street.”
      9.The court erred in denying a defense motion for an instanter subpoena duces tecum for jail .records in connection with the cross-examination of a state’s witness.
      10. The court erred in refusing to sustain a defense objection to the excision of portions of the defendant’s confession (which referred to other criminal conduct).
      11. The court erred in overruling defense objections to improper hypothetical questions propounded by the state to a defense witness.
      13. There was a lack of evidence to support the court’s finding of guilt.
      14. The statutory scheme which denies bifurcated proceedings in cases where the alternative plea of not guilty by reason of insanity is asserted is unconstitutional.


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: PER CURIAM.

license: Public Domain

text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. James HARVEY and Rennie Atwell.
    No. 62951.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 14, 1979.
    Ralph H. Fishman, Peter S. Title, Sessions, Fishman, Rosenson, Snellings & Bois-fontaine, New Orleans, for Rennie Atwell.
    William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., Harry F. Con-nick, Dist. Atty., Maurine A. Carroll, Asst. Dist. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.
   PER CURIAM.

On February 18, 1976, defendants James Harvey and Rennie Atwell were convicted of murder, La.R.S. 14:30 (1950), and sentenced to life imprisonment. On appeal, this Court found that while all other assignments lacked merit, defendants had raised a serious issue regarding the denial of a defense motion to require the state to disclose the prior conviction records of prospective state witnesses. Finding that the trial court had erred in not requiring the state to respond to the specific request by stating whether it had knowledge or possession of such records, and, if so, by not requiring the prosecutor to furnish them to defendants, or submit them to the court for a determination as to whether defendants were entitled to this material, we remanded the case to the trial court for it to determine if there was a suppression of subject matter requested for which there was a substantial basis for claiming that materiality existed and, if so, whether the information suppressed by the state would upon its evaluation in the context of the entire record create a reasonable doubt as to defendant’s guilt. We reserved to defendants the right to appeal from an adverse ruling. State v. Harvey, 358 So.2d 1224 (La.1978). On remand, the trial court found that no suppression of the information requested had occurred. Defendants now appeal from that ruling.

At the remand hearing, the prosecuting attorney informed the court and defense counsel that the state did not have any “rap sheets” on any witnesses in its possession and did not have knowledge of any prior convictions of any witnesses. The defense introduced no evidence to the contrary. We conclude, therefore, that the trial court did not err in determining that the state had not suppressed information requested by defendants.

Accordingly, defendants’ convictions and sentences are affirmed.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Leroy JOHNSON.
    No. 63365.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 14, 1979.
    Elizabeth W. Cole, Orleans Indigent Defender Program, New Orleans, for defendant-appellant.
    William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., Harry F. Con-nick, Dist. Atty., Joe Giarrusso, Asst. Dist. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.
   PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

DIXON and DENNIS, JJ., dissent.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Keith WARNER.
    No. 63366.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 14, 1979.
    Elizabeth W. Cole, Robert F. Barnard, Orleans Indigent Defender Program, New Orleans, for defendant-appellant.
    William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., Harry F. Con-nick, Dist. Atty., Louise S. Korns, Asst. Dist. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.
   PER CURIAM.

Defendant Keith Warner was charged by bill of information with the theft of property valued at $150, La.R.S. 14:67, and with possession of the same stolen property, La. R.S. 14:69; he was jointly charged with a third count of attempted simple burglary, La.R.S. 14:27 (14:62), which was severed for trial. On August 8, 1978, defendant was tried on the first two counts, and found not guilty of theft and guilty of possession of stolen property valued at $99. In a separate trial on the same day, he was convicted of attempted simple burglary. The court sentenced him to serve six months in Parish Prison on the possession count and six years at hard labor, to run consecutively, on the attempted burglary count. Defendant has appealed from both convictions and sentences, urging one assignment of error relative to the trial for attempted burglary and requesting this Court to inspect the records of both proceedings for patent errors pursuant to La.C.Cr.P. art. 920(2).

No direct appeal lies from defendant’s conviction for possession of stolen property, a misdemeanor for which he was sentenced to serve six months’ imprisonment. See, La.Const.1974, Art. 5, § 5(D). However, we have considered defendant’s “appeal” in this case as an application for a supervisory writ, and hereby grant the writ in order to review the record as requested.

We have considered defendant’s assignment of error and find that it lacks merit. Furthermore, we have reviewed the record of pleadings and proceedings in both cases presented and have discovered no patent errors.

Accordingly, defendant’s convictions and sentences are affirmed.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. James L. SMITH.

      No. 63472.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 14, 1979.
    William B. Lynch, Bossier City, for defendant-appellant.
    William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., Henry N. Brown, Jr., Dist. Atty., Bobby L. Stromile, Asst. Dist. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.
   PER CURIAM.

Defendant James L. Smith was charged by bill of information with distribution of a Schedule III controlled dangerous substance (phencyclidine), in violation of La.R.S. 40:968(A). On June 28, 1978, defendant pleaded guilty to the charged crime. Subsequently, he was sentenced to serve four (4) years at hard labor in the custody of the Department of Corrections. Defendant now appeals to this Court.

We have reviewed defendant’s assignments of error regarding the failure of the trial court to grant a continuance and the alleged denial of his right to a jury trial and conclude that they lack merit. However, we do find meritorious defendant’s argument that the trial court failed to comply with the provisions of Article 894.1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. That article sets' forth grounds for imposition of sentence and factors which should be accorded weight in the trial court’s determination to suspend sentence or place a defendant on probation. It additionally provides that the “court shall state for the record the considerations taken into account and the factual basis therefor in imposing sentence.” The record in this case does not reflect that the trial court complied with this mandate to particularize the sentence to defendant. See State v. Cox, 369 So.2d 118 (La.1979); State v. Sepulvado, 367 So.2d 762 (La.1979); State v. Jackson, 360 So.2d 842 (La.1978); State v. Scarborough, 359 So.2d 982 (La.1978).

Accordingly, we vacate defendant’s sentence and remand the case to the trial court with instructions to resentence defendant in accordance with law.

      . Defendant’s argument that he did not receive effective assistance of counsel is more properly raised by writ of habeas corpus, because of the inconclusiveness of the present record on the issue. See State v. Collins, 350 So.2d 590 (La.1977).


text:
    Marilyn FERGUSON v. Dr. Carl LANGFORD.
    No. 63998.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 16, 1979.
   In re Marilyn Ferguson, applying for cer-tiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit. Parish of Lincoln.

Granted.

It is ordered that the writ of review issue; that the Court of Appeal send up the record in duplicate of the case; and that counsel for plaintiff and defendant be notified.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Victor LONGLOIS. STATE of Louisiana v. James. S. MOORE.
    No. 64005.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 16, 1979.
   In re Victor Longlois and James S. Moore applying for writs of certiorari and review. Parish of Natchitoches.

Granted.

The petition of the relator in the above entitled and numbered case having been duly considered,

It is ordered that a writ of certiorari issue herein, directing the Honorable Richard B. Williams, Judge of the Tenth Judicial District Court for the Parish of Natchitoches, to transmit to the Supreme Court of Louisiana, on or before the 30th day of March, 1979, the record in duplicate, or a certified copy of the record in duplicate, of the proceedings complained of by the relator herein, to the .end that the validity of said proceedings may be ascertained.

It is further ordered that the aforesaid Judge of said Court and the respondent through counsel shall show cause, in this Court, on a date to be fixed by this Court, why the relief prayed for in the petition of the relator should not be granted.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Carl GOETZ.
    No. 64052.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 16, 1979.
   In re Carl Goetz applying for writs of review, certiorari and mandamus. Parish of Ascension.

Writ granted.

The petition of the relator in the above entitled and numbered case having been duly considered,

It is ordered that a writ of certiorari issue herein, directing the Honorable Penrose St. Amant, Judge of the 23rd Judicial District, Court for the Parish of Ascension, to transmit to the Supreme Court of Louisiana, on or before the 30th day of March, 1979, the record in duplicate, or a certified copy of the record in duplicate, of the proceedings complained of by the relator herein, to the end that the validity of said proceedings may be ascertained.

It is further ordered that the aforesaid Judge of said Court and the respondent through counsel, shall show cause, in this Court, on a date to be fixed by this Court, why the relief prayed for in the petition of the relator should not be granted.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Warren WALKER.
    No. 64069.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 16, 1979.
   In re Warren Walker applying for writs of review, certiorari and mandamus. Parish of East Baton Rouge. 350 So.2d 176.

Writ granted.

The petition of the relator in the above entitled and numbered case having been duly considered,

It is ordered that a Writ of Certiorari issue herein, directing the Honorable Douglas M. Gonzales, Judge of the 19th Judicial District Court for the Parish of E. Baton Rouge, to transmit to the Supreme Court of Louisiana, on or before the 30th day of March, 1979, the record in duplicate, or a certified copy of the record in duplicate, of the proceedings complained of by the relator herein, to the end that the validity of said proceedings may be ascertained.

It is further ordered that the aforesaid Judge of said Court and the respondent through counsel shall show cause, in this Court, on a date to be assigned by this Court, why the relief prayed for in the petition of the relator should not be granted.


text:
    G. L. PARET v. LOUISIANA HEALTH SERVICES & INDEMNITY COMPANY.
    No. 64059.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 16, 1979.
   In re Louisiana Health Services & Indemnity Co. applying for writ of certiorari, Court of Appeal, Third Circuit. Parish of Calcasieu. 366 So.2d 634.

Writ denied.


text:
    G. L. PARET v. LOUISIANA HEALTH SERVICES & INDEMNITY COMPANY.
    No. 64025.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 16, 1979.
   In re G. L. Paret, applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit. Parish of Calcasieu. 366 So.2d 634.

Writ denied.

TATE, J., would grant the writ.


text:
    NORTH CENTRAL UTILITIES, INC. v. Norris SARVER et al.
    No. 64068.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 16, 1979.
   In re North Central Utilities, Inc. applying for writ of certiorari, Third Circuit Court of Appeal. Parish of Rapides. 366 So.2d 968.

Writ denied.

CALOGERO and DENNIS, JJ., would grant the writ.


text:
    H & H SEWER SYSTEMS, INC. v. Norris SARVER et al.
    No. 64067.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 16, 1979.
   In re North Central Utilities, Inc. applying for writ of certiorari, Third Circuit Court of Appeal, No. 6758. Parish of Rap-ides. 366 So.2d 972.

Writ denied.

CALOGERO and DENNIS, JJ., would grant the writ.


text:
    Earl W. ROOKS v. RAPIDES PARISH SCHOOL BOARD.
    No. 64065.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 16, 1979.
   In re Earl W. Rooks, applying for certio-rari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit. Parish of Rapides. 366 So.2d 605.

Writ denied.


text:
    Mr. and Mrs. Vincent MONTALBANO v. BERNER’S, INC.
    No. 63999.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 16, 1979.
   In re Berner’s, Inc. applying for writ of certiorari, Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal, No. 9626. Parish of Orleans. 365 So.2d 923.

Writ denied.


text:
    Gerald W. RUTHERFORD v. Leon V. IMPSON, Sr.
    No. 64021.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 16, 1979.
   In re Leon V. Impson, Sr., applying for certiorari, or writ of review to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit. Parish of Livingston. 366 So.2d 944.

Writ denied.

BLANCHE, J., recused.


text:
    SUCCESSION OF Lloyd A. MONTERO, Sr.
    No. 64012.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 16, 1979.
   In re Lloyd A. Montero, Jr., and Ronald Joseph Montero, applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit. Parish of Orleans. 365 So.2d 929.

Writ denied.


text:
    Beverly F. BRANDON, Individually and as Tutrix for Minors, Jonathan Bustin Brandon and Jerry Lee Brandon, et al. v. STATE of Louisiana, through DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS, et al.
    No. 64004.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 16, 1979.
   In re State of Louisiana, Department of Transportation and Development, applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit. Parish of Bossier. 367 So.2d 137.

Writ denied.

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


text:
    McDonald MEEK v. RIVER PARISHES COMPANY, INC.
    No. 64002.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 16, 1979.
   In re McDonald Meek applying for certio-rari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit. Parish of St. James. 365 So.2d 878.

Writ denied.


text:
    Lurry D. LACOUR v. Alvin B. CRAIS.
    No. 64027.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 16, 1979.
   In re Lurry D. Lacour applying for writ of certiorari, Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal. Parish of Jefferson. 367 So.2d 1203.

Writ denied.

SUMMERS, C. J., and DENNIS, J., would grant.


text:
    Charles L. GIANELLONI, Jr. v. Patrick L. BALL, Harold Ball & Ball General Construction and Mechanical, Inc.
    No. 64074.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 16, 1979.
   In re Ball General Construction & Mechanical, Inc. applying for writ of prohibition, certiorari and mandamus. Parish of Jefferson.

Writ denied.

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


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. James E. LISENBY.
    No. 64073.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 16, 1979.
   In re James E. Lisenby, applying for remedial writs. Parish of LaSalle.

Writ denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Paula DYAN. STATE of Louisiana v. Daphne LOUIS.
    No. 64054.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 16, 1979.
   In re Paula Dyan and Daphne Louis applying for writs of certiorari and supervisory and/or remedial writs and mandamus. Parish of Orleans.

Writ granted. A hearing is ordered to determine whether the OIDP lawyers are instructed to urge the accused to sign the waiver and whether these lawyers urged these defendant to do so, and whether the waivers were knowingly and intelligently made.

SUMMERS, C. J. and BLANCHE, J., dissent.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Arron BRUINS.
    No. 63844.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 16, 1979.
   In re Arron Bruins applying for remedial writs. Parish of Rapides.

Writ granted. Application granted to trial court with instructions to grant out of time.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Melvin FRANK v. Hon. Frank SHEA, Judge, Section “G”, Criminal District Court, Parish of Orleans.
    No. 63667.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 16, 1979.
   In re Melvin Frank applying for supervisory and remedial writs. Parish of Orleans.

Writ granted. Trial Court ordered to rule upon application by petitioner or, if already ruled upon, to send copy or notice of ruling to the petitioner.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana ex rel. James E. WILLIAMS v. Ross MAGGIO, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary.
    No. 63340.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 16, 1979.
   In re James E. Williams applying for remedial writ. Parish of Orleans.

Writ denied. Appeal pending in this Court. See Docket No. 64,151.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Jimmie L. TAYLOR v. Matthew S. BRANIFF, Judge, Criminal District Court, Section B., Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana.
    No. 64063.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 16, 1979.
   In re Jimmie L. Taylor, applying for writs of certiorari and Mandamus. Orleans Parish.

Writ denied. The 1968 guilty plea was taken prior to the requirements of Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969). The accused did not satisfy his sentence under that conviction until expiration of his probation. La.C. Cr.P. art. 898.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. James HUNTER.
    No. 63374.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 16, 1979.
   In re State of Louisiana, applying for reconsideration. Orleans Parish.

On January 12, 1979, we ordered an evi-dentiary hearing to be held in connection with the adequacy of Hunter’s Boykinization at the time of the entry of earlier pleas. Thereafter, the trial judge filed an application for reconsideration and - submitted documents containing a waiver of the rights of trial and appeal. In light of those documents (styled “Plea of Guilty” and signed by the defendant), considering that the pleas, though post-Boykin were pre-Jackson, and consistent with our action in State ex rel. Clayton v. Maggio, 343 So.2d 734 (La.1977) we hereby recall our previous order granting an evidentiary hearing.

DIXON, J., would grant the evidentiary hearing because the documents here supplied do not show a complete Boykinization, nor that the plea was knowingly and intelligently given.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Stanley HALL v. Gayle K. HAMILTON, District Judge.
    No. 64037.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 16, 1979.
   In re Stanley Hall applying for writ of mandamus. Parish of Caddo.

Writ granted. The trial court is ordered to furnish the petitioner a transcription of the Boykin hearing at which his guilty plea was taken.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Cheryl Booker QUALLS.
    No. 64075.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 16, 1979.
   In re Cheryl Booker Qualls applying for writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus. Parish of Jackson.

Writ granted. State is ordered to furnish appeal transcript to relator without charge. See R.S. 13:961.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana ex rel. George Henry LEE v. Hayden J. DEES, Warden Dixon Correctional Institute, et al.
    No. 63360.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 16, 1979.
   In re George H. Lee applying for writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus and habe-as corpus. Parish of East Baton Rouge.

Writ denied. The application is moot since the Department has recalculated the good time in accordance with Act 39 of 1972, as requested.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Joseph Leon CHASE v. CLERK OF COURT, PARISH OF WEST FELICIANA.
    No. 63853.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 16, 1979.
   In re Joseph Leon Chase applying for writ of mandamus. Parish of West Felicia-na.

Writ denied. Application for a speedy trial is moot. The district attorney has nol pressed pending charges. See return of March 12 from trial court.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Frederick JONES v. CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT, SECTION “B” New Orleans, Louisiana.
    No. 63371.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 16, 1979.
   In re Frederick Jones, applying for writ of mandamus. Parish of Orleans.

Writ denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Calvin BLACKBURN v. ORLEANS INDIGENT DEFENDER PROGRAM.
    No. 64031.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 16, 1979.
   In re Calvin Blackburn, applying for remedial writs. Orleans Parish.

Writ denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Elvis BROOKS v. Honorable Frank J. SHEA, Judge Criminal District Court, Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana.
    No. 63965.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 16, 1979.
   In re Elvis Brooks, applying for writ of mandamus. Orleans Parish.

Writ granted. The defendant is ordered remanded to parish prison pending determination of out of time appeal.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Grandville TENNART v. Frank BLACKBURN, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary.
    No. 64058.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 16, 1979.
   In re Grandville Tennart applying for Supervisory writs, writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus. Parish of Avoyelles.

Writ granted. A hearing is ordered to determine whether there was a conflict of interest as to the attorney representing all 3 defendants and whether there was a failure of the state to reveal that a co-defendant had been promised immunity for testimony.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Ernest M. SERIO v. Wallace C. LEBRUN, Judge, Division I, 24th JDC.
    No. 64061.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 16, 1979.
   In re Ernest M. Serio applying for writ of mandamus. Parish of Jefferson.

Denied. With the understanding that relator has been furnished with a transcript of the Boykin examination, this application is denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Robert J. CELESTINE v. J. Paul PHELPS, Warden.
    No. 63869.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 16, 1979.
   In re Robert J. Celestine applying for writ of habeas corpus. Parish of Lafayette.

Writ denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Lee Autry COOK v. Barry L. SHAHEEN, President for Sara, Inc., at Dixon Correctional Institute.
    No. 63818.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 16, 1979.
   In re Lee Autry Cook, applying for reconsideration of writ. Parish of East Baton Rouge.

Denied. This application only shows the citation to Shaheen, and not service on him.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Frank Freddie MONROE v. Frank BLACKBURN, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary.
    No. 63757.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 16, 1979.
   In re Frank Freddie Monroe applying for writs of habeas corpus, certiorari, prohibition and - mandamus. Parish of Orleans.

Writ denied.

DIXON, J., would grant the writ.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Fred GLEASON v. Judge Matthew S. BRANIFF, Criminal District Court.
    No. 63716.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 16, 1979.
   In re Fred Gleason applying for writ of mandamus. Parish of Orleans.

Writ denied. Mandamus application moot. Trial Court ruled on petition February 23, 1979, for return to this Court.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Arthur GARDNER v. Frank C. BLACKBURN, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary.
    No. 63574.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 16, 1979.
   In re Arthur Gardner applying for writ of mandamus. Parish of Bienville.

Writ denied. Mandamus application moot. Per return, trial court acted on application Dec. 15, 1978.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Edward LASSITER v. Frank BLACKBURN, Warden.
    No. 63802.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 16, 1979.
   In re Edward Lassiter applying for writ of habeas corpus. Parish of St. Tammany.

Writ granted. Evidentiary hearing ordered as to whether the relator was competent at the time he entered the guilty plea.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Darrel TAYLOR v. CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT, SECTION “E”, Parish of Orleans.
    No. 63822.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 16, 1979.
   In re Darrel Taylor, applying for writ of mandamus. Orleans Parish.

Writ granted. Application transferred to trial court for disposition.


text:
    FIRST METROPOLITAN BANK OF JEFFERSON v. Gordon E. NORDGREN. FIRST METROPOLITAN BANK OF JEFFERSON v. Gordon E. NORDGREN and Resort Land Company, Inc.
    No. 64008.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 16, 1979.
   In re John P. Epling, Jr., M.D., applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit. Parish of St. Tammany.

Writ denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Howard Edward CUDE.
    No. 63750.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 16, 1979.
   In re Howard Edward Cude, applying for remedial writs. Bossier Parish.

Writ denied. Moot. Detainer has been cancelled.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Rickey YUNK.
    No. 63767.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 16, 1979.
   In re Rickey Yunk applying for writ of certiorari. Parish of Ouachita.

Writ denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Kenneth R. JOHNSON.
    No. 63911.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 16, 1979.
   In re Kenneth R. Johnson applying for writ of review. Parish of Jefferson.

Writ denied.

TATE, J., dissents.


text:
    Scerena WEATHERSPOON v. SECURITY INDUSTRIAL INSURANCE COMPANY.
    No. 64000.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 16, 1979.
   In re Scerena Weatherspoon applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit. Parish of Tangipa-hoa.

Writ denied.

TATE and DENNIS, JJ., would grant the writ.

BLANCHE, J., recused.


text:
    Richard E. WARREN v. Betty L. MURRAY, Wife of Richard E. Warren.
    No. 64001.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 16, 1979.
   In re Betty Murray Warren, applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit. Parish of Jefferson.

Writ denied.


text:
    LOUISIANA NATIONAL LEASING CORPORATION v. E. CLARK MATTER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, E. Clark Matter and Kathleen D. Matter.
    No. 64020.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 16, 1979.
   In re E. Clark Matter and Kathleen Drew Matter, applying for remedial writ of review. East Baton Rouge Parish.

Writ denied. There is insufficient showing to warrant the exercise of our supervisory jurisdiction.

TATE, DIXON and MARCUS, JJ., would grant and order that the interrogatories be answered.


text:
    Irma MILLER v. NATIONAL TEA COMPANY et al.
    No. 64011.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 16, 1979.
   In re Irma Miller, applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit. Parish of St. Mary.

Writ denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Harrison JACKSON.
    No. 64010.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 16, 1979.
   In re Harrison Jackson applying for writ of certiorari. Parish of East Baton Rouge.

Writ denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Paul A. MYERS, III.
    No. 64007.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 16, 1979.
   In re Paul A. Myers, III applying for writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus and review. Parish of Richland.

Writ denied.


text:
    Joseph W. MONTALDO v. The KORNER REALTY CO., INC. et al.
    No. 64003.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 16, 1979.
   In re The Korner Realty Co., Inc., and Watts Cutter, applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit. Parish of Orleans.

Writ denied.


text:
    Bennett JACKSON et al. v. HANOVER INSURANCE CO. et al.
    No. 64029.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 16, 1979.
   In re Hanover Insurance Co., et al., applying for supervisory or remedial writs. Parish of Orleans.

Writ denied.


text:
    Mrs. Patricia PACKARD, Wife of Robert Evan Adams v. Robert Evan ADAMS.
    No. 64024.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 16, 1979.
   In re Mrs. Patricia Packard, wife of Robert Evan Adams, applying for writ of cer-tiorari. Orleans Parish.

Writ denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Willie ROBINSON, Jr.
    No. 64157.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 16, 1979.
   In re Willie Robinson, Jr., applying for writs of certiorari, mandamus and prohibition and stay order. Jefferson Parish.

Writ denied. Adequate remedy by appeal.


author: TATE, J.,

text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Lomas ROUBION and Elleaner Eveque.
    No. 64103.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 16, 1979.
   In re State of Louisiana, through the District Attorney, Harry F. Connick, applying for writ of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus. Orleans Parish.

Construing that the severance has not yet been sought or granted, the application is denied.

TATE, J.,

concurs. The assignment of separate trial dates for administrative reasons, in the event a motion for severance is filed and granted, has not severed the trials procedurally.


text:
    Don FREEMAN v. C. D. BELL, Willie Brewer, and Willie Brewer and Associates, Inc.
    No. 63952.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 23, 1979.
   In re C. D. Bell, et al., applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit. Parish of Bossier. No. 13692. 366 So.2d 197.

Writ denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Charles E. BONEVENTURE and Sandra Buchanan.
    No. 64131.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 23, 1979.
   In re Charles E. Boneventure and Sandra Buchanan applying for writ of certiorari. Parish of East Baton Rouge. No. 5-78-408.

Granted.

The petition of the relator in the above entitled and numbered case having been duly considered,

It is ordered that a writ of certiorari issue herein, directing the Honorable Frank Foil, Judge of the Nineteenth Judicial District, Court for the Parish of East Baton Rouge, to transmit to the Supreme Court of Louisiana, on or before the 6th day of April, 1979, the record in duplicate or a certified copy of the record in duplicate, of the proceedings complained of by the relator herein, to the end that the validity of said proceedings may be ascertained.

It is further ordered that the aforesaid Judge of said Court and the respondent through counsel shall show cause, in this Court, on a date to be fixed by this Court why the relief prayed for in the petition of the relator should not be granted.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Morris SCALLON.
    No. 64077.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 23, 1979.
   In re Morris Seallon, applying for writ of certiorari (review), prohibition, or mandamus. Rapides Parish City Court. No. J 4719.

Writ granted.

The petition of the relator in the above entitled and numbered case having been duly considered,

It is ordered that a writ of certiorari issue herein, directing the Honorable George M. Foote, Judge of the City Court of Alexandria, for the Parish of Rapides, to transmit to the Supreme Court of Louisiana, on or before the 6th day of April, 1979, the record in duplicate, or a certified copy of the record in duplicate, of the proceedings complained of by the relator herein, to the end that the validity of said proceedings may be ascertained.

It is further ordered that the aforesaid Judge of said Court and the respondent through counsel shall show cause, in this Court, on a date to be fixed by this Court why the relief prayed for in the petition of the relator should not be granted.


author: TATE, J., DIXON, J.,

text:
    Henry T. DONOHOE, et ux. v. STATE of Louisiana through DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS et al., City of Pineville.
    No. 64097.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 23, 1979.
   In re Henry T. Donohoe, et ux., applying for writ of certiorari, Third Circuit Court of Appeal. Parish of Rapides. Court of Appeal No. 6652. 366 So.2d 598.

Writ denied.

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

TATE, J.,

would grant the writ. The governmental authorities are not entitled to appropriate an owner’s land without a writing or an expropriation proceeding. The land owner is entitled to an injunction to remove the illegal trespass on his land.

DIXON, J.,

concurs in the denial because the result would have been the same if defendant had reconvened and expropriated the servitude involved.


text:
    Mrs. Wanda Kidder HEBERT, individually, et al. v. MISSOURI PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY et al.
    No. 64088.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 23, 1979.
   In re Missouri Pacific Railroad Company and Merle R. Browning, applying for certio-rari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit. Parish of St. Landry. Court of Appeal Nos. 6720 through 6724. 366 So.2d 608.

Writ denied.


text:
    Voorhies STELLY, individually, et al. v. MISSOURI PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY et al.
    No. 64089.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 23, 1979.
   In re Missouri Pacific Railroad Co., and Merle R. Browning, applying for certiorari, or writ of review to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit. Parish of St. Landry. Court of Appeal No. 6722. 366 So.2d 617.

Writ denied.


text:
    Keith GUIDRY v. MISSOURI PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY et al.
    No. 64090.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 23, 1979.
   In re Missouri Pacific Railroad Company and Merle R. Browning, applying for certio-rari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit. Parish of St. Landry. Court of Appeal No. 6723. 366 So.2d 618.

Writ denied.


text:
    William RUE et al. v. The CONTINENTAL INSURANCE COMPANIES.
    No. 64084.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 23, 1979.
   In re William Rue applying for writ of certiorari, Third Circuit Court of Appeal. Parish of Natchitoches. Court of Appeal No. 6749. 366 So.2d 629.

Writ denied.


text:
    Mrs. Yvonne HONEYCUTT et al. v. TOWN OF BOYCE, Louisiana, et al.
    No. 64105.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 23, 1979.
   In re Mrs. Yvonne Honeycutt, et al., applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit. Parish of Rapides. Court of Appeal No. 6773. 366 So.2d 640.

Writ denied.

SUMMERS, C. J. and DENNIS, J., would grant the writ.


text:
    Timothy KIRK v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE CO. et al.
    No. 64092.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 23, 1979.
   In re Timothy Kirk applying for writ of certiorari, Third Circuit Court of Appeal. Parish of Calcasieu. Court of Appeal No. 6772. 366 So.2d 642.

Writ denied.

DIXON and CALOGERO, JJ., would grant the writ.


text:
    SUCCESSION OF James Ware GARDINER.
    No. 64118.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 23, 1979.
   In re Katherine Garrison Brewer applying for writ of certiorari, Third Circuit Court of Appeal. Parish of Calcasieu. Court of Appeal No. 6774. 366 So.2d 1065.

Writ denied.

DENNIS, J., would grant the writ.


text:
    Mrs. Josephine C. BONVILLIAN, Widow of Joseph E. Bonvillian v. The LOUISIANA COCA-COLA BOTTLING CO., LTD., and its President, Richard W. Freeman, Jr., and its Secretary, Ronald H. Schrolder, and the Retirement Plan Committee of the Louisiana Coca-Cola Bottling Co., Ltd., and the Individual Members thereof, and S. V. Vallot.
    No. 64104.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 23, 1979.
   In re Mrs. Josephine C. Bonvillian, widow of Joseph E. Bonvillian, applying for certio-rari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit. Parish of Orleans. Court of Appeal No. 9852. 367 So.2d 1349.

Writ denied.


text:
    SUCCESSION OF George V. KITE. Robert J. KITE et al. v. Mrs. Billie R. KITE, Transamerica Insurance Company.
    No. 64085.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 23, 1979.
   In re Mrs. Billie R. Kite applying for writ of certiorari, Third Circuit Court of Appeal. Parish of Beauregard. Court of Appeal No. 6663. 366 So.2d 602.

Writ denied.

DENNIS, J., would grant the writ.


text:
    Mrs. Wanda Kidder HEBERT, Individually et al. v. MISSOURI PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY et al. Clara Mae LALONDE, Individually and as Natural Mother of the Deceased, Voorhies Lee Stelly, Jr. v. MISSOURI PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY et al. Voorhies STELLY, Individually et al. v. MISSOURI PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY et al. Keith GUIDRY v. MISSOURI PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY et al.
    No. 64081.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 23, 1979.
   In re State of Louisiana, Department of Highways, now State of Louisiana, Department of Transportation and Development, applying for certiorari, or writ of review to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit. Parish of St. Landry. Court of Appeal No. 6720 through 6724. 366 So.2d 608; 366 So.2d 617; 366 So.2d 618; 366 So.2d 619.

Writ defied.

CALOGERO and DENNIS, JJ., would grant the writ.


text:
    SUCCESSION OF James Ware GARDINER.
    No. 63897.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 23, 1979.
   In re Charlotte Tucker, et al., applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit. Parish of Calcasieu. No. 6774. 366 So.2d 1065.

Denied.


text:
    Margie RIMMER v. Sammie E. JOWERS.
    No. 64099.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 23, 1979.
   In re Sammie E. Jowers applying for writ of certiorari, Third Circuit Court of Appeal. Parish of Rapides. Court of Appeal No. 6759. 367 So.2d 37.

Writ denied.


text:
    Henry SPRAWLS v. SENTRY INSURANCE COMPANY et al.
    No. 64119.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 23, 1979.
   In re Henry Sprawls applying for writ of certiorari, Third Circuit Court of Appeal. Parish of Natchitoches. Court of Appeal No. 6800. 367 So.2d 1256.

Writ denied.


text:
    Georgia SMALL v. J. C. PENNEY, INC., et al.
    No. 64147.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 23, 1979.
   In re J. C. Penney, Inc. applying for writ of certiorari, Third Circuit Court of Appeal. Parish of Rapides. No. 6836. 367 So.2d 1277.

Writ denied.

SUMMERS, C. J., MARCUS and BLANCHE, JJ., would grant the writ.


text:
    Karen C. MAUTHE v. Susan L. GIBSON et al.
    No. 64117.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 23, 1979.
   In re Karen C. Mauthe applying for writ of certiorari, Third Circuit Court of Appeal. Parish of Lafayette. Court of Appeal No. 6837. 367 So.2d 1280.

Writ denied.


text:
    Robert PEREZ, Jr. v. CONTINENTAL CASUALTY CO. et al.
    No. 64087.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 23, 1979.
   In re Robert Perez, Jr. applying for writ of certiorari, Third Circuit Court of Appeal. Parish of Iberia. Court of Appeal No. 6846. 367 So.2d 1284.

Writ denied.


text:
    John L. WHITE et al. v. Sarges ROBINSON et al.
    No. 64132.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 23, 1979.
   In re John L. White, et al., applying for writ of certiorari, Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal. Parish of Orleans. Court of Appeal No. 10,038. 367 So.2d 1358.

Writ denied.


text:
    Clara Mae LALONDE, individually, and as Natural Mother of the Deceased, Voorhies Lee Stelly, Jr. v. MISSOURI PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY et al.
    No. 64091.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 23, 1979.
   In re Missouri Pacific Railroad Company and Merle R. Browning, applying for certio-rari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit. Parish of St. Landry. Court of Appeal No. 6720.

Writ denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Sawyer LEWIS.
    No. 64030.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 23, 1979.
   In re Sawyer Lewis applying for writ of habeas corpus. Orleans Parish. No. 257— 998.

Writ denied. See also our writ denial in State v. Lewis, 352 So.2d 236. (La.1977).


author: DIXON, J., DENNIS, J.,

text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Lloyd LEWIS.
    No. 64213.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 23, 1979.
   In re Lloyd Lewis applying for writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus. Parish of Calcasieu. No. RC-186-79.

Writ denied.

DIXON, J.,

concurs in the denial. See R.S. 15:574.8, et seq.

DENNIS, J.,

would grant the writ. In view of the constitutional guarantees of right to bail and presumption of innocence, it is real clear that relator is foreclosed from bail prior to his adjudication as a parole violator.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Sonny DAVENPORT v. 14TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT et al.
    No. 64111.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 23, 1979.
   In re Sonny Davenport applying for writ of mandamus. Parish of Calcasieu.

Writ denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Quenton N. BROWN v. 16TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, Parish of St. Mary, State of Louisiana.
    No. 64107.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 23, 1979.
   In re Quenton N. Brown, applying for writ of habeas corpus. Parish of St. Mary. Number 71,162.

Writ denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana ex rel. James WILSON v. CADDO PARISH SHERIFF.
    No. 64109.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 23, 1979.
   In re James Wilson applying for writ of habeas corpus. Parish of Caddo.

Writ denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Larry J. WINFREY v. Frank C. BLACKBURN, Warden.
    No. 64137.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 23, 1979.
   In re Larry J. Winfrey applying for writ of habeas corpus. Parish of Orleans.

Writ denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Andrew Joseph JOHNSON v. Sybil FULLERTON, Chairman, Louisiana State Board of Paroles, et al.
    No. 64134.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 23, 1979.
   In re Andrew Joseph Johnson, applying for writ of mandamus. Parish of East Baton Rouge. No. 1-79-639.

Writ denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Tookie DAVALIE v. Frank C. BLACKBURN, Warden.
    No. 64112.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 23, 1979.
   In re Tookie Davalie applying for writ of habeas corpus. Parish of Orleans.

Writ denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Roland WILLIAMS v. Hayden L. DEES, Warden, Dixon Correctional Institution, et al., Honorable Frank Shea, Judge Orleans Parish, Section G.
    No. 63076.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 23, 1979.
   In re Roland Williams applying for writ of mandamus. Parish of Orleans. No. 252— 333.

Denied. Moot.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Autry Lee JONES v. Honorable H. M. “Mike” CANNON, Clerk.
    No. 64139.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 23, 1979.
   In re Autry Lee Jones applying for writ of mandamus. Parish of East Baton Rouge.

This is a civil suit. Writ not considered— Relator must first seek relief in the Court of Appeal.

DIXON, J., would grant the writ.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Jeffrey WALKER.
    No. 64233.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 23, 1979.
   In re Jeffrey Walker, applying for writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus and stay order. Orleans Parish. No. 267-942.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Frank FISCHER.
    No. 64199.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 23, 1979.
   In re Frank Fischer applying for writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus and for a stay order. Parish of Orleans. No. 264^-728.

Writ denied.

TATE, J.,

concurring. The denial is of course without prejudice to the accused to re-apply, if the trial on the merits is not commenced by May 9, 1979, as scheduled.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Curtis DANDRIDGE.
    No. 64142.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 23, 1979.
   In re Curtis Dandridge applying for writ of habeas corpus, certiorari, mandamus and prohibition. Parish of Orleans. No. 261— 955.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Ralph ORTEGO.
    No. 64133.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 23, 1979.
   In re Ralph Ortego, applying for remedial writs. Evangeline Parish.

Writ denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. AL Joseph LACEY.
    No. 64130.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 23, 1979.
   In re A1 Joseph Lacey, applying for writs of certiorari and review. Parish of Natchi-toches. No. 50738.

Writ denied.


text:
    Floyd W. SMITH, Jr. v. Helen M. Jordan SMITH.
    No. 64101.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 23, 1979.
   In re Floyd W. Smith, Jr., applying for writ of certiorari, Third Circuit Court of Appeal. Parish of Rapides, peal No. 6760. Court of Ap-

Writ denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Alonzo GUAJARDO.
    No. 64098.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 23, 1979.
   In re Alonzo Guajardo applying for writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus. Parish of Jefferson. No. 78 — 2855.

Writ denied.

MARCUS and BLANCHE, JJ., would grant the writ.


text:
    CITY OF BATON ROUGE v. David MITCHELL.
    No. 64096.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 23, 1979.
   In re David Mitchell applying for writ of certiorari. Parish of East Baton Rouge. City Court No. 41,086.

Writ denied.

DENNIS, J., would grant the writ.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. John L. BEST.
    No. 64093.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 23, 1979.
   In re John L. Best, applying for writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus and for a stay order. Parish of Grant.

Writ denied. The showing is insufficient to warrant the exercise of our supervisory jurisdiction.

DIXON and CALOGERO, JJ., would grant the writ.


text:
    CITY OF BATON ROUGE v. Johnny DUNN.
    No. 64082.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 23, 1979.
   In re Johnny Dunn applying for writ of certiorari, Parish of East Baton Rouge. City Court.

Writ denied.

DENNIS, J., would grant the writ.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Charles BOLTON.
    No. 64080.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 23, 1979.
   In re Charles Bolton applying for supervisory writ. Parish of Orleans. No. 266-965.

Writ denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Perry TILLMAN.
    No. 64028.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 23, 1979.
   In re Perry Tillman, applying for remedial writs. Orleans Parish.

Writ denied.

TATE, CALOGERO and BLANCHE, JJ., would grant the writ.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Ronnie WATSON.
    No. 63913.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 23, 1979.
   In re Ronnie Watson, applying for remedial writs. Orleans Parish.

Writ denied.


text:
    Antoine Lester DELHOMME et al. v. FORREST OIL CORPORATION et al.
    No. 64100.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 23, 1979.
   In re A. Lester Delhomme applying for writs of certiorari, mandamus, and prohibition and/or review. Parish of Lafayette. No. 78,1062-B.

Writ granted. Ruling of the trial judge is reversed — no good cause shown.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Plutarcho HILL v. 19TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT.
    No. 64145.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 23, 1979.
   In re Plutarcho Hill applying for writ of certiorari. Parish of East Baton Rouge. No. 8-78-746.

Writ denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Herman SMITH, Jr. v. 23RD JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, Parish of Assumption.
    No. 64143.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 23, 1979.
   In re Herman Smith, Jr. applying for writs of habeas corpus, prohibition and mandamus. Parish of Assumption.

Denied. Moot. Trial court has acted.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Lee A. SIMMONS v. CLERK OF COURT, 1ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, Parish of Caddo.
    No. 64110.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 23, 1979.
   In re Lee A. Simmons applying for writ of mandamus. Parish of Caddo.

Writ granted. Upon payment of costs in advance, the trial judge shall order the transcript delivered to the relator.


text:
    SHELL PIPELINE CORPORATION v. Norman R. LIVELY et al.
    No. 64249.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 26, 1979.
   In re Clothilde Wiseman Lively, Juanita W. Benoit, Nora Lee Davis, Marquetta Kleinpeter and Carmen L. Bergeron, applying for writs of certiorari, mandamus, prohibition and review. Parish of Iberville. No. 23,730.

Writ granted. Ruling of the court of appeal is reversed and set aside and the ruling of trial court is reinstated. We find no abuse of discretion on part of the trial court.


author: SUMMERS, C. J.,

text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. William MASTERSON.
    No. 64267.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 27, 1979.
   In re State of Louisiana, through the District Attorney, Paul Carmouche, applying for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus and for a stay order. Caddo Parish. No. 110,354.

Writ denied.

SUMMERS, C. J.,

would grant the writ. “The right to a preliminary examination shall not be denied in felony cases except where the accused has been indicted by a grand jury.” La.Const, art. I § 14. In this case the trial judge has improperly ordered the State to show probable cause to hold the accused when the grand jury has indicted him. I would set aside the order of the trial judge. I respectfully dissent.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Antonio CARACCI and Gloria Caracci.
    No. 64275.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 28, 1979.
   In re Antonio Caracci and Gloria Caracci, applying for writ of review. Jefferson Parish. No. 77-838.

Writ granted. It is ordered that this matter be reset for hearing and the trial completed prior to April 1, 1979.


text:
    Jacob SMITH v. The RECORDER OF MORTGAGES FOR the PARISH OF ORLEANS et al.
    No. 64283.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 28, 1979.
   In re Jacob Smith, applying for remedial writ. Orleans Parish. No. 76-16968.

Denied.

CALOGERO and DENNIS, JJ., would grant a stay pending the preferentially set appeal in the related case.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. David J. LINER.
    No. 64187.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 29, 1979.
   In re State of Louisiana applying for writ of certiorari. Parish of St. Mary. No. 100-884.

Writ granted.

The petition of the relator in the above entitled and numbered case having been duly considered,

It is ordered that a writ of certiorari issue herein, directing the Honorable C. Thomas Bienvenu, Judge of the 16th Judicial District Court for the Parish of St. Martin to transmit to the Supreme Court of Louisiana, on or before the 13th day of April, 1979, the record in duplicate, or a certified copy of the record in duplicate, of the proceedings complained of by the relator herein, to the end that the validity of said proceedings may be ascertained.

It is further ordered that the aforesaid Judge of said Court and the respondent through counsel shall show cause, in this Court, on the 17th day of April, 1979, at 10 o’clock A.M., why the relief prayed for in the petition of the relator should not be granted.