author: SMITH, CHARLES E., Associate Judge.

text:
    Muriel SKELLY, Appellant, v. HARTFORD CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY and Publix Super Markets, Inc., a Florida corporation, Appellees.
    No. 83-363.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    Feb. 22, 1984.
    Michael J. Silverstein, of Michael J. Sil-verstein, P.A., North Palm Beach, for appellant.
    Solomon & Flanagan, Fort Lauderdale; Jane Kreusler-Walsh and Larry Klein, West Palm Beach, for appellees.
   SMITH, CHARLES E., Associate Judge.

Muriel Skelly, the Plaintiff, sustained an injury at a Publix Supermarket when a nine-pound bagholder fell on the back of her right foot. This caused an incomplete tear to her Achilles tendon. Both the plaintiffs and the defendant’s medical experts testified that the plaintiff incurred a permanent partial disability as a result of this accident. The plaintiffs doctor’s opinion was that she suffered a ten-percent permanent disability to the right leg, and the defendant’s doctor’s opinion was that she sustained a two-percent permanent disability to her right leg or a one-half-percent disability to her overall body. The jury returned a verdict in the exact amount of her medical bills of $1,630.00. The jury failed to award any amount for pain and suffering and permanent disability. The trial court denied plaintiff’s Motion for New Trial. The indisputable evidence is that the Plaintiff suffered pain and a permanent partial disability from a demonstrable injury. The zero damage award for those items is grossly inadequate and a new trial is required. Stevens v. Mt. Vernon, 395 So.2d 1206 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981).

The judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded for an additur or to permit the plaintiff to have the option of a new trial on damages only.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

GLICKSTEIN and HURLEY, JJ., concur.


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: DENNIS, Justice. CALOGERO, Justice,

license: Public Domain

text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Herman FRANCOIS. STATE of Louisiana v. Gregory DRIGHT.
    Nos. 83-KA-0813, 83-KA-0837.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 28, 1983.
    William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., Harry F. Con-nick, Dist. Atty., William R. Campbell, Susan Hart, Leon Cannizzaro, Jr., Asst. Dist. Attys., for plaintiff-appellee in both cases.
    George W. Reese, New Orleans, for defendant-appellant in No. 83-KA-0813.
    R. James Kellogg, New Orleans, for defendant-appellant in No. 83-KA-0837.
   DENNIS, Justice.

Defendants, who were acquitted of capital crimes by reason of insanity, unsuccessfully moved the Orleans Criminal District Court for a transfer to a less restrictive commitment facility. Instead of deciding the merits of defendants’ motions, the district court declared unconstitutional the statute it considered applicable to such transfers and terminated the proceedings. Defendants appealed directly here, La. Const. Art. 5 § 5(D)(1), and the state joins in urging reversal of the district court declaration. We reverse and remand the case for a decision on the merits.

The district court’s rationale was that (1) La.R.S. 28:59(A) purportedly requires it to conduct civil commitment proceedings, and (2) the state constitution prevents the legislature from authorizing it to adjudicate a civil matter. We disagree with both propositions.

La.R.S. 28:59(A) provides:

Any person acquitted of a crime or misdemeanor by reason of insanity or mental defect may be committed to the proper institution in the manner provided for judicial commitment by the district court of acquittal and contradictorily with the district attorney.

This section is part of the Mental Health Act of 1977 which contains rules governing both civil and criminal commitments. However, La.R.S. 28:59(A) was superseded, regarding the commitment and discharge of capital and felony insanity acquittees, by Act 689 of 1982, which, in pertinent part, provides:

Section 1. Code of Criminal Procedure Art. 654 is hereby amended and reenacted to read as follows:
Art. 654. Legal effect of acquittal on ground of insanity; commitment
When a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity is returned in a capital case, the court shall commit the defendant to a proper state mental institution or to a private mental institution approved by the court for custody, care, and treatment.
When a defendant is found not guilty by reason of insanity in any other felony ease, the court shall remand him to the parish jail or to a private mental institution approved by the court and shall promptly hold a contradictory hearing at which the defendant shall have the burden of proof, to determine whether the defendant can be discharged or can be released on probation, without danger to others or to himself. If the court determines that the defendant cannot be released without danger to others or to himself, it shall order him committed to a proper state mental institution or to a private mental institution approved by the court for custody, care, and treatment. If the court determines that the defendant can be discharged or released on probation without danger to others or to himself, the court shall either order his discharge, or order his release on probation subject to specified conditions for a fixed or an indeterminate period. The court shall assign written findings of fact and conclusions of law; however, the assignment of reasons shall not delay the implementation of judgment.
Section 2. Code of Criminal Procedure Art. 657 is hereby amended and reenacted to read as follows:
Art. 657. Discharge or release; hearing
After considering the report or reports filed pursuant to Articles 655 and 656, the court may either continue the commitment or hold a contradictory hearing to determine whether the committed person can be discharged, or can be released on probation, without danger to others or himself. At the hearing the burden shall be upon the committed person to prove that he can be discharged, or can be released on probation, without danger to others or himself. After the hearing, and upon filing written findings of fact and conclusions of law, the court may order the committed person discharged, released on probation subject to specified conditions for a fixed or an indeterminate period, or recommitted to the state mental institution. Notice to the counsel for the committed person and the district attorney of the contradictory hearing shall be given at least thirty days prior to the hearing.
Section 3. If any provision or item of this Act or the application thereof is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions, items, or applications of this Act which can be given effect without the invalid provisions, items, or applications, and to this end the provisions of this Act are hereby declared severable.
Section 4. All laws or parts of laws in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.

Accordingly, a commitment or discharge of a person found not guilty by reason of insanity of a capital or felony offense shall be governed by La.C.Cr.P. Arts. 654 and 657 commencing with the effective date of Act 689 of 1982. Since the present commitment related proceedings were brought after the effective date of this act by capital insanity acquittees, La.R.S. 28:59(A) has been superseded and has no application to their motions for transfer. Thus, the district judge was in error in assuming that La.R.S. 28:59(A) is applicable and in declaring it unconstitutional.

The district judge’s ruling that the legislature cannot authorize the Orleans Criminal District Court to adjudicate a civil matter apparently was based on La. Const. Art. 5 § 32 which provides:

Except for provisions relating to terms of office as provided elsewhere in this Article, and notwithstanding any other contrary provision of this constitution, the following courts and officers in Orleans Parish are continued, subject to change by law: the civil and criminal district courts, the city, municipal, traffic, and juvenile courts; the clerks of the civil and criminal district courts; the civil and criminal sheriffs; the constables and the clerks of the first and second city courts; the register of conveyances; and the recorder of mortgages.

This section continues the former constitution’s separation between the civil and criminal district courts in Orleans Parish. But it also reserves to the legislature the plenary lawmaking power to change this division by law. Accordingly, the legislature may completely abolish, partially erase or otherwise change the separation between these courts by law. Consequently, the district judge was in error in holding that the legislature may not by a duly enacted law authorize the Orleans Criminal District Court to adjudicate a civil matter. Compare L. Hargrave, The Judiciary Article of the Louisiana Constitution of 1974, 37 La.L.Rev. 765, 778, 810 (1977).

For these reasons, although La.R.S. 28:59(A) of the Mental Health Act pertaining to commitments of capital and felony insanity acquittees has been superseded by La.C.Cr.P. arts. 654 and 657, as amended and reenacted, there is no constitutional bar to the application of the code’s rules governing transfers in an Orleans Criminal District Court proceeding. There is a legislative limitation, however, contained in the Mental Health Act itself. La.R.S. 28:94(A)(2) provides that “[a] person under sentence or acquitted of a crime or misdemeanor on the ground of mental illness or defect shall be transferred only upon authority of the committing court.”

In summary, we conclude that a commitment or a discharge of a person acquitted of a felony or capital offense by reason of insanity is governed by La.C.Cr.P. arts. 654 and 657, as amended and reenacted; that there is no constitutional bar to legislative authorization of the Orleans Criminal District Court to adjudicate a civil matter; and that La.R.S. 28:94(A)(2) prohibits the transfer of an insanity acquittee without the authority of the committing court. Thus, there is no constitutional impediment to prevent the district court from entertaining and deciding the defendants’ motions for transfers.

For the reasons assigned, the district court’s judgment is reversed and the case is remanded for a decision on the merits.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

CALOGERO, J., concurs and assigns reasons.

CALOGERO, Justice,

concurring.

I concur in the result reached by the majority, that there is no constitutional bar to legislative authorization to the Orleans Parish Criminal District Court to adjudicate a civil matter, and, too, that questions concerning commitment, transfer and discharge of a person acquitted of a felony or capital offense by reason of insanity are governed by La.C.Cr.P. arts. 654 — 658 rather than by the Mental Health Act of 1977 (La.R.S. 28:1 et seq.). However, on the latter point, I disagree with the reasoning, or at least with certain assertions by the majority.

The majority reasons that La.C.Cr.P. arts. 654 and 657 supersede the Mental Health Act provisions because they were amended in 1982, after the enactment of the Mental Health provisions. However, the amendment, in which the majority places emphasis, was very minor and did nothing more than add, delete and change a few words.

These minor amendments evidence no intent on the part of the Legislature to effect a superseding of the Mental Health Act.

However, I do concur in the result reached, for the following reasons. La. R.S. 28:59 (a provision of the Mental Health Act) as originally enacted, came from 1946 La.Acts No. 303. The provisions of Act No. 303 of 1946 were similar to the present ones, and dealt with commitment procedures generally. La.C.Cr.P. arts. 654 and 657 were enacted thereafter, in 1966, to deal specifically with persons acquitted of crimes because of insanity. In my view, it is this later enactment, in 1966, of the criminal procedure provisions, dealing with a specific group of persons to be committed, that was otherwise covered by the broader Mental Health provisions, which constitutes a superseding of the Mental Health provisions by the criminal procedure provisions.

The Official Revision Comments to La.C. Cr.P. art. 654 support this view and provide in pertinent part:

Under general provisions of the Louisiana Mental Health Law (R.S. 28:59) the court was empowered to, and usually did, order the defendant committed to a mental institution. However, this provision was permissive, not mandatory; and it also necessitated civil commitment procedures. This article provides for prompt disposal of the question pursuant to this Code, rather than discretionary handling of the case under the general mental health law.

Thus, in my view, it is the enactment of La.C.Cr.P. arts. 654 and 657 in 1966, subsequent to the enactment of La.R.S. 28:59, which supports the conclusion that the criminal provisions superseded the Mental Health provisions, rather than the fact that La.C.Cr.P. arts. 654 and 657 were amended in minor respects in 1982.

      . The following changes were made to La.C. Cr.P. art. 654:
      Deleted "can be” following "discharged or” and preceding "released”, deleted the comma following "probation” and substituted “the court” for "it” in the third sentence, and added the last sentence in the second paragraph.
      The following changes were made to La.C.Cr.P. art. 657:
      Inserted ", and upon filing written findings of fact and conclusions of law,” in the second sentence.


author: WATSON, Justice. LEMMON, Justice,

text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Lovell DeHART, Jr. and Sadina Bergeron.
    No. 82-KA-1978.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 16, 1984.
    Concurring Opinion March 7, 1984.

      William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., Norval J. Rhodes, Dist. Atty., Dixie C. Brown, Asst. Dist. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.
    Charles Gary Blaize, Orleans Indigent Defender Program, Keith M. Whipple, Houma, for defendant-appellant.
   WATSON, Justice.

In a joint trial, defendants, Lovell DeHart, Jr., and Sadina Bergeron, were convicted of distribution of marijuana in violation of LSA-R.S. 40:967 A(l). De-Hart was sentenced to six years at hard labor and Bergeron to five years at hard labor, and defendants appealed their convictions and sentences. Pending the appeals, Lovell DeHart, Jr., died an accidental death. His death certificate has been filed in the record and his appeal is moot. State v. Clayton, 427 So.2d 827 (La., 1982); State v. Hamilton, 370 So.2d 874 (La., 1979); State v. Ferina, 351 So.2d 1200 (La., 1977); State v. Morris, 328 So.2d 65 (La., 1976).

FACTS

On July 16, 1981, Detective Sergeant Douglas Charles Modrynski went to the residence of Sadina Bergeron at 512 Eliza Street in the City of Houma accompanied by a confidential informant, one Wesley Meredith. Meredith “hung around” the neighborhood and had a cousin who lived next door to Sadina Bergeron. (Tr. 321) Modrynski and Meredith knocked on the door of the Bergeron home and were invited to enter. Upon entering the kitchen, Modrynski observed two clear plastic bags containing a greenish brown vegetable substance. According to Modrynski, Sadina Bergeron, Susan Lapworth and DeHart were sharing what appeared to be a marijuana cigarette. Several other people were present. Modrynski said he would buy one of the bags and asked permission to return to his car to get the money. He removed four hundred and sixty dollars from his sun visor and gave a prearranged signal to the surveillance teams stationed outside the house. Susan Lapworth’s daughter, Tiffany, opened the door when he returned. After Modrynski obtained the money from his car, Sadina Bergeron picked up one of the clear plastic bags; DeHart opened up a brown paper bag; they stuck the plastic bag in the paper bag and handed it to Modrynski. He paid DeHart the money, which DeHart counted and put in his pocket. After a phone call apparently warned Sadina Bergeron that the police were coming, panic ensued until Modrynski restored order. Seized from the house were four bags containing three and a half pounds of marijuana, a gun, various drug paraphernalia and some pills.

At a preliminary hearing on a motion to suppress filed on behalf of defendant De-Hart, the state agreed and conceded that the motion to suppress should be granted as to all items seized with the exception of the one pound of marijuana which was sold to Modrynski. Accordingly, the court granted the motion to suppress with the exception of that one pound of marijuana.

ISSUE

At trial, despite defense objections, the court allowed the prosecutor and Modryn-ski to refer extensively to the suppressed evidence, stating that suppression of physical evidence did not prohibit testimony about it.

CONCLUSION

LSA-C.Cr.P. art. 703 provides in pertinent part that:

“A ruling prior to trial on the merits, upon a motion to suppress, is binding at the trial.”

Thus, regardless of the merits of the motion, the trial court was bound by the prior ruling of another section of the court.

Any distinction “between testimonial and tangible evidence” is irrational and untenable. State v. Patton, 374 So.2d 1211 at 1213 (La., 1979). The policies underlying the exclusionary rule do not allow any logical distinction between physical and verbal evidence. “The essence of a provision forbidding the acquisition of evidence in a certain way is that not merely evidence so acquired shall not be used before the Court but that it shall not be used at all....” Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 at 485, 83 S.Ct. 407 at 416, 9 L.Ed.2d 441 at 453 (1963).

Evidence which would otherwise be suppressible has been allowed when it had an independent basis. United States v. Crews, 445 U.S. 463, 100 S.Ct. 1244, 63 L.Ed.2d 537 (1980). This exception applies when there is an independent source for the evidence, which antedates the illegality causing the suppression. State v. Johnson, 371 So.2d 1155 (La., 1979); State v. Marshall, 359 So.2d 78 (La., 1978).

Because the state agreed that the evidence should be suppressed, the grounds for the suppression ruling are not of record. It was nonetheless binding at trial, and the state was required to adhere to its agreement. There was no prior independent basis for admission of the excluded testimony.

Here, the only question was whether the state, having conceded that certain evidence should be suppressed and having acquiesced in a court ruling to that effect, should have been allowed to refer to that evidence. There is no question that the evidence was highly prejudicial to defendant Bergeron because it was co-defendant DeHart who received the money for the pound of marijuana. The jury might well have acquitted her of the charge of distribution of marijuana absent references to the suppressed evidence. Consequently, the error affected the substantial rights of the accused. LSA-C.Cr.P. art. 921.

For the foregoing reasons, the conviction and sentence of defendant, Sadina Berger-on, are reversed and the matter is remanded for further proceedings.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

LEMMON, J., concurs and assigns reasons.

LEMMON, Justice,

concurring.

I concur in the result in this case, because the prosecutor’s concession at the motion to suppress (that she would only introduce at trial the one pound of marijuana transferred to the agent and would not offer into evidence any of the items seized in the search) arguably led defense counsel to reasonably believe that he need not be prepared to meet any evidence relating to the other items which were seized. The decision in this case, therefore, really turns on the enforcement of a prosecutor’s pretrial agreement. See State v. Shelton, 377 So.2d 96 (La.1979), in which this court reversed a conviction because the prosecutor’s breach of a pretrial agreement not to offer certain evidence was not justified by the circumstances and was prejudicial to the defendant.

Thus, the decision in this case should not be viewed as necessarily requiring the exclusion in all instances of testimony regarding preseizure observations of illegally seized evidence solely because the subsequent seizure was constitutionally invalid. Each case must be decided on its own facts and circumstances. When a preseizure observation by an independent witness is unrelated to the subsequent illegal police activity involved in the seizure, it can hardly be argued that the deterrent purpose of the exclusionary rule requires the exclusion of such significant and relevant testimonial evidence.

      . At the time of the crime, July 16, 1981, marijuana had not been reclassified as a Schedule I drug by Act No. 800 of 1981, effective August 2, 1981.

      . In contrast to People v. Dory, 59 N.Y.2d 121, 463 N.Y.S.2d 753, 450 N.E.2d 673 (1983), it is not known whether the preclusion order rested on Fourth Amendment grounds or not.

      . Assignments of Error Number Four, Five, Six, Seven and Eight. Discussion of the other assignments of error is pretermitted.

      . Compare People v. Young, 55 N.Y.2d 419, 449 N.Y.S.2d 701, 434 N.E.2d 1068 (1982) where the physical evidence seized from defendant at the time of his arrest was suppressed but the officers'were allowed to testify to the circumstances of the arrest with the result that the jury asked but was not told whether the suppressed evidence (the knife and the money) was found on the defendant at the time of his arrest.

      . At the motion to suppress, the prosecutor stated: .
      “I concede that as a distribution charge I will only be able to introduce that which was actually part of the distribution. And I have no intention of introducing these numerous items that were seized as a result of the search, the consent to search signed by Sadina Bergeron. And my intention would be to introduce what he in fact did transfer to Mr. Modrynski."

      . Suppose, for example, that a witness observes the defendant with a large quantity of green vegetable matter and handrolled cigarettes in a plastic bag at a garage sale in New Orleans and that the police seize that same marijuana in Laplace one hour later solely on the basis of an anonymous and uncorroborated tip that defendant is in possession of marijuana at his home in Laplace. If the marijuana is later suppressed on a pretrial motion filed by the defendant, the independent testimony relating to the preseizure observation, which was totally unrelated to the subsequent illegal police activity, should not be excluded on the basis of the mechanical application of a rule which is totally unrelated to the defendant’s guilt or innocence.
      Whether the witness' observation is alone sufficient evidence to support a conviction is another question. However, when only part of the evidence seized by the police is suppressed prior to trial, testimony regarding independent presei-zure observations of subsequently suppressed evidence may very well be relevant to the issues of guilty knowledge and of intent to distribute.


author: WATSON, Justice.

text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Jimmy Dean BROWN.
    No. 82-KA-2098.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 16, 1984.
    William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., James L. Davis, Dist. Atty., Abbott J. Reeves, Asst. Dist. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.
    Claude R. Sledge, Mansfield, for defendant-appellant.
   WATSON, Justice.

Defendant was convicted of simple burglary in violation of LSA-R.S. 14:62, and was sentenced to three years in the custody of the Louisiana Department of Corrections at hard labor, with one year suspended on the special condition that restitution be made to the victim in the amount of $600.

On appeal there are two assignments of error: the first that the evidence is insufficient and the second that the sentence is excessive.

The facts proved at trial were largely undisputed. During November or December, 1979, a mobile home belonging to James C. Dykes was broken into and a television set, a radio, and a quilt were taken. The exact date of this event was unknown because the owner resided in Houston and visited the trailer only at infrequent intervals when in the Converse, Louisiana, area.

On December 13, 1979, the defendant in the company of Kelvin Williams and Charles Ray Lloyd drove to Pleasant Hill, Louisiana, where he sold a television set to Shirley Neal at the Pizza Hut. The T.V. was identified later as the one taken from the mobile home. Neal gave the defendant a check which he cashed at a nearby store after endorsing it and furnishing his driver’s license number which was entered on the check. The state’s case of burglary was basically that the mobile home had been broken into and that Jimmy Dean Brown had later sold a television set which was taken from the mobile home.

At trial the defendant denied that the T.V. originated with him, claiming that his two companions had the set and asked him to help them sell it. They in turn denied having anything to do with the television set and said it was in defendant’s car when they first saw it.

The jury found defendant guilty as charged.

The first assignment of error, that the evidence is insufficient, resolves the appeal. Defendant was convicted on circumstantial evidence which connected him with stolen property, there being no direct evidence to connect him with the unauthorized entry of the mobile home.

At one time there existed in Louisiana a judicially created presumption that a person in possession of recently stolen property in a burglary was presumed to have committed the offense. However, the case of State v. Searle, 339 So.2d 1194 (La., 1976) repudiated the presumption with language which is equally appropriate here:

“... Therefore, we hold that our judicially created presumption that a defendant found in possession of property recently stolen in a burglary is presumed to have committed the burglary does not meet the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard, and that defendant consequently was adjudged guilty without requiring that the State prove beyond a reasonable doubt every essential element of the crime charged.” 339 So.2d at 1206.

It is noteworthy that this court overruled the presumption relying principally on In Re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 90 S.Ct. 1068, 25 L.Ed.2d 368 (1970). The decision in Searle anticipated Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979) which said: “... [T]he relevant question is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” 443 U.S. 307 at 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781 at 2789, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 at 573 (1979).

In the case on appeal no rational trier of fact could have found the element of unauthorized entry beyond a reasonable doubt. The cases cited by the state are factually distinguishable. The evidence fails markedly to prove the element of unauthorized entry beyond a reasonable doubt. The case does not involve merely, as counsel argued to the jury, a credibility call between defendant and his two companions. The state’s case fails when it is understood that there must be evidence to link defendant with the unauthorized entry. His possession of the stolen television does not satisfy this requirement.

Therefore, the defendant’s conviction and sentence are reversed and set aside, and it is ordered that defendant be discharged.

REVERSED.

      . LSA-R.S. 14:62 provides:
      “Simple burglary is the unauthorized entering of any dwelling, vehicle, watercraft, or other structure, movable or immovable, with the intent to commit a felony or any theft therein, other than as set forth in Section 60. “Whoever commits the crime of simple burglary shall be fined not more than two thousand dollars, imprisoned with or without hard labor for not more than twelve years, or both."

      . The sentence is illegal on its face since there is no authority to suspend a portion of a sentence entered in a felony case.

      . In State of Johnson, 310 So.2d 600 (1975) the defendant was recognized as a person seen, about one o'clock in the morning, lowering the tailgate of a pickup truck parked by a veterinary clinic. The door of the clinic had been jimmied and a safe rolled to a point near where the truck had been parked. There were pipe rollers in the truck when defendant was arrested about eight blocks from the scene.
      In State v. Hamilton, 312 So.2d 656 (1975), defendant's car was found parked next to a store where a glass door had been broken to gain entrance; an accomplice testified he and defendant broke in but fled when police investigated.

        State v. Finley, 341 So.2d 381 (1976) two defendants were observed at night in a closed used car lot, one pushing a tire and rim under a Chevrolet truck. Investigation revealed that the tire was the spare which had been removed from the trunk of a nearby Oldsmobile. A third defendant was waiting in a getaway car and tried to slide out of sight when police arrived.
      It should be noted that these cases were reviewed under the "some” evidence rule.


author: PER CURIAM.

text:
    Walter C. DUMAS v. Louis JETSON, et al.
    No. 83-C-2614.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 18, 1984.
   PER CURIAM.

This case involves two separate civil actions: (1) a principal action by Walter Dumas pursuant to La.R.S. 18:1401(B) to declare an election void and (2) an incidental action by Louis Jetson pursuant to La.R.S. 18:1432(B) for an award of attorney’s fees and damages for Dumas’ bringing a frivolous election suit. Each action is based on separate and distinct juridical facts constituting the separate causes of action.

The trial court could have ordered the separate trial of the principal and incidental actions and could have rendered separate judgments, from which there could have been separate appeals. La.C.C.P. Art. 1038. Moreover, even though the trial court rendered only one judgment jointly adjudicating both actions, one party could have appealed in the action contesting the election, while the other party could have appealed in the action demanding damages (as might have occurred if the trial court had ruled in favor of Jetson in the election contest, but dismissed the incidental action for damages). Additionally, either party could have appealed in the action seeking damages, without any appeal in the action contesting the election.

Therefore, because there was an entirely separate and distinct right to appeal in each action, the delay for each appeal must be calculated separately. The delay for the appeal in the election contest is governed by a special statute, La.R.S. 18:1409, and the 24-hour delay period is based on the obvious need for expedited treatment. On the other hand, since there are no special statutes governing the delay for the appeal in the action seeking damages, the general codal articles are applicable. There are also no special statutes requiring security in an appeal in the action seeking damages, nor is there any obvious need for expedited treatment of an appeal when the trial judge grants or refuses a money judgment.

Accordingly, the appeal from that portion of the judgment of the trial court which awarded attorney’s fees and damages was timely. We therefore grant relator’s application in part and remand the matter to the court of appeal to review the appeal from that portion of the judgment of the trial court. Otherwise, the application is denied.

DIXON, C.J., would grant and bring this case up to be argued; otherwise, the writ should be denied.

MARCUS, J., would deny the application.

      . In deciding an appeal from a judgment awarding (or denying) attorney's fees and damages, the appellate court will review the record facts in the election suit, but will view those facts in a different perspective and will not accord the usual weight to the trial court’s resolution of disputed factual issues. Moreover, additional evidence will often be offered to support or controvert the incidental demand, particularly on the issue of attorney's fees.

      . The election code, containing special provisions for speedy trials and appeals of election contests, was enacted in 1976. The cause of action for attorney's fees and damages for frivolous election suits was conferred by Act 506 of 1980.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana ex rel., Terry James PIERRE v. Ross MAGGIO, Jr., Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary.
    No. 83-KH-0806.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 27, 1984.
   On Application for Writs

Granted. Relator’s sentence, thirty-three years at hard labor, was not imposed without benefit of parole, probation or suspension of sentence; whereas the Department of Corrections records reflect parole ineligibility. The determination of the sentence a defendant is to serve, and what, if any, conditions are to be imposed on that sentence, is made by the trial judge, not the defendant’s custodian. The custodian’s obligation is to see that the sentence imposed is the sentence served. The State of Louisiana in the person of the prosecutor was party to the proceedings in which this sentence was imposed. The prosecutor has not objected and has not sought to have the sentence set aside. Accordingly, the Department of Corrections is ordered to correct their records to show that relator's sentence is to be served as imposed by the trial judge, without the restriction of parole ineligibility. See State v. Almore, 433 So.2d 712 (La.1983).

MARCUS and BLANCHE, JJ., concur:

It is the prosecutor’s duty to have a sentence set aside if it is not in accordance with the statute. The Department’s duty is to comply with the sentence of the trial judge as rendered.


author: CALOGERO, J.,

text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Junius TERRY.
    No. 84-KK-0271
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 9, 1984.
   In re Junius Terry, applying for writ of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus and stay order, to the 24th Judicial District Court, Parish of Jefferson, No. 76-2524; to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal, No. 84-K-81.

Denied.

CALOGERO, J.,

additionally concurs. Relator is not foreclosed from re-urging the arguments presented in this writ application at the scheduled evidentiary hearing on relator’s post conviction writ application.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana, ex rel. Donald ARBUTHNOT v. Hon. Dennis J. WALDRON, Judge, Criminal District Court, Sec. “F”, Parish of Orleans.
    No. 83-KH-0953.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 10, 1984.
   In re Donald Arbuthnot, applying for writ of mandamus, Criminal District Court, Parish of Orleans, No. 227-350, Section “F”.

Granted: The district court is ordered to furnish relator with Boykin transcript in case No. 227-350 F on the docket of the Orleans Parish District Court.


text:
    HONEYWELL, INC. v. JIMMIE B. GUINN, INC., Jesse F. Heard & Sons, Inc., and Travelers Indemnity Co.
    No. 84-C-0033.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 10, 1984.
   In re Honeywell, Inc., applying for writs of certiorari and/or review to the Third Circuit Court of Appeal, No. 83-207; Twenty-Eighth Judicial District Court, Parish of LaSalle, No. 18086.

Case below: 440 So.2d 973.

Granted. Decision of Court of Appeal is reversed. Case remanded to Court of Appeal for reconsideration in light of Hauserman v. Roussel-Hart, Gen. Contr., 395 So.2d 800 (La.1981).

Opinion on remand, 449 So.2d 1382.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana ex rel., James WILLIAMS v. Ross MAGGIO, Jr., Warden Louisiana State Penitentiary.
    No. 83-KH-1370.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 10, 1984.
   In re James Williams, applying for supervisory writs, Parish of Orleans, No. 251470.

Granted. From the transcript of his remarks at sentencing, it is unclear whether the trial judge was aware of his sentencing alternatives at the time but chose not to exercise them in that particular case. Accordingly, relator’s sentence is vacated and this case is remanded to the trial court for resentencing in accord with the law.


text:
    KUSWA & ASSOCIATES, INC. General Contractors v. THIBAUT CONSTRUCTION CO., INC.
    No. 83-C-2646.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 10, 1984.
   In re Thibaut Construction Co., Inc., applying for writ of certiorari and/or review to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal, No. 82-CA-48; 24th Judicial District Court, Parish of Jefferson, No. 235-569, Division “M”.

Case below: 440 So.2d 1338.

Granted.


text:
    Hugh D. WILSON, Individually & as Administrator of the Estate of Hugh Walter Wilson & Mrs. Dorothy Ann Nason Wilson v. CHART HOUSE, INC., Dixie Leasing of New Orleans, Inc. Saunders Leasing System, Inc., Steven R. Clark, Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., & Leatherby Ins. Co.
    No. 84-C-0043.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 10, 1984.
   In re Hugh D. Wilson, Individually and as Administrator of the Estate of Hugh Walter Wilson and Mrs. Dorothy Ann Na-son Wilson, applying for writ of certiorari or review to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal, No. 83-CA-495, from the Twenty-Fourth Judicial District Court, Parish of Jefferson, No. 190-714.

Case below: 442 So.2d 1263.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana ex rel., Douglas Thornton JONES v. James F. McKAY, III Judge Criminal Court, Parish of Orleans, Section “H”.
    No. 83-KH-1027.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 10, 1984.
   In re Douglas Thornton Jones, applying for remedial writ to the Criminal District Court, Parish of Orleans, No. 289-604.

Granted. The trial court is ordered to furnish relator a transcript of the guilty plea in Docket No. 289-604H.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana ex rel., Lawrence ADAMS, Jr., v. Ross MAGGIO, Jr., Warden Louisiana State Penitentiary.
    No. 83-KH-1376.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 10, 1984.
   In re Lawrence Adams, Jr., applying for supervisory writs, Parish of Orleans, No. 251-468.

Granted. From the transcript of his remarks at sentencing, it is unclear whether the trial judge was aware of his sentencing alternatives at the time but chose not to exercise them in that particular case. Accordingly, relator’s sentence is vacated and this case is remanded to the trial court for resentencing in accord with the law.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana ex rel., Richard MAHOGANY v. Ross MAGGIO, Warden Louisiana State Penitentiary.
    No. 83-KH-1380.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 10, 1984.
   In re Richard Mahogany, applying for supervisory writs, Parish of Orleans, No. 251-479.

Granted. From the transcript of his remarks at sentencing, it is unclear whether the trial judge was aware of his sentencing alternatives at the time but chose not to exercise them in that particular case. Accordingly, relator’s sentence is vacated and this case is remanded to the trial court for resentencing in accord with the law.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana ex rel., Arie DOLLY v. Hon. H.M. “Mike” CANNON, Clerk of Court, Nineteenth Judicial District Court.
    No. 83-KH-2664.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 10, 1984.
   In re Arie Dolly, applying for writ of mandamus from the Nineteenth Judicial District Court, Parish of East Baton Rouge, No. 10-81-1024.

Granted. Boykin transcript ordered furnished.


text:
    Norman BOUDREAUX, Jr. v. EXXON COMPANY, U.S.A.
    No. 84-C-0027.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 10, 1984.
   In re Exxon Company, U.S.A., applying for writ of review to the Third Circuit Court of Appeal, No. 83-CA-171; Fifteenth Judicial District Court, Parish of Vermilion, No. 82-44311-E.

Case below: 441 So.2d 79.

Granted. Judgment of the Court of Appeal is set aside. The case is remanded to the Court of Appeal to decide the case on the record including merit of the statutory employer defense and/or jury’s finding Exxon non negligent.


text:
    Danny A. DAUZAT v. GREGORY AND COOK, INC. and Gray and Company, Inc.
    No. 84-C-0039.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 10, 1984.
   In re Danny A. Dauzat, applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the court of Appeal Third Circuit, No. 83-249; Parish of Evangeline, 13th Judicial District, No. 37989-B.

Case below: 440 So.2d 989.

Granted.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Charles J. KRAMER, Jr., v. 19TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF EAST BATON ROUGE, State of Louisiana.
    No. 84-KH-0073.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 10, 1984.
   In re Charles J. Kramer, Jr., applying for writ of mandamus to the First Circuit Court of Appeal, No. KW-83/1412; 19th Judicial District Court, Parish of East Baton Rouge, No. 270-577.

Writ Granted. This matter is transferred to the First Circuit, Court of Appeal as the mandamus petition filed by relator involves a civil matter pending in the 19th Judicial District Court.


text:
    Albert L. ROY, Jr. v. UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION.
    No. 84-C-0076.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 10, 1984.
   In re Albert L. Roy, Jr., applying for writ of certiorari, or writ of review, to the Third Circuit Court of Appeal, No. 83-322; Parish of Calcasieu, 14th Judicial District Court, No. 82-105.

Case below: 442 So.2d 1303.

Granted.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Marvin MILLER v. Hon. Matthew S. BRANIFF, Judge Criminal District Court, Sec. “B” Parish of Orleans.
    No. 84-KH-0080.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 10, 1984.
   In re Marvin Miller, applying for writ of mandamus from the Criminal District Court, No. 251-951, Parish of Orleans.

Granted. The district court is ordered to furnish relator with a copy of his Boykin transcript.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Rickey L. McKEEL.
    No. 84-K-0070.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 10, 1984.
   In re State of Louisiana, applying for writ of certiorari and/or review to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal, No. KA-0547; Orleans Criminal District Court, Parish of Orleans, No. 281-490.

Case below: 443 So.2d 753.

Granted. To be docketed as an appeal.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana, ex rel. Leonard J. GRIFFIS v. Allen BABINEAUX, Judge.
    No. 83-KH-1005.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 10, 1984.
   In re Leonard J. Griffis, applying for writ of mandamus, Parish of Lafayette, 15th Judicial District Court, Nos. 46817 and 46969.

Granted. Trial court ordered to furnish Boykin transcripts; otherwise denied,


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Willie D. SPEARS.
    No. 83-KH-2386.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 10, 1984.
   In re Willie D. Spears, applying for writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus, Parish of Orleans, Nos. 257-186 and 269-435.

Case below: 393 So.2d 113.

Granted. Trial judge ordered to furnish relator with copies of Boykin transcripts in 257-186 and 269-435; otherwise denied.


text:
    Earl WRIGHT v. OCEAN DRILLING EXPLORATION COMPANY, et al.
    No. 84-C-0063.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 10, 1984.
   In re Earl Wright, applying for writ of certiorari, to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal, No. CA-0891, from the Civil District Court, Parish of Orleans, No. 82-368.

Case below: 444 So.2d 129.

Motion to Dismiss Granted.


text:
    Earl WRIGHT v. OCEAN DRILLING EXPLORATION COMPANY, et al.
    No. 84-C-0068.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 10, 1984.
   In re Ocean Drilling and Exploration Company, applying for writ of certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. CA-0891; to the Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court, No. 82-368.

Case below: 444 So.2d 129.

Motion to Dismiss Granted.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Tyronne HENSLEY v. Hon. Edward A. de la HOUSSAYE, Judge, 16th Judicial District Court, Parish of Iberia.
    No. 84-KH-0220.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 10, 1984.
   In re Tyronne Hensley, applying for a writ of mandamus to the Sixteenth Judicial District Court, Parish of Iberia Nos. 34970 and 34352.

Transferred to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit.


text:
    STATE of La. ex rel. Leonard Jerome GASTON v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 84-KH-0230.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 10, 1984.
   In re Leonard Jerome Gaston, applying for application for supervisory writ from the 19th Judicial District Court, Parish of East Baton Rouge, No. 278-579.

Granted to transfer to the Court of Appeal, 1st Circuit.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana, ex rel. Donald BRIGGS v. Ross MAGGIO, Jr., Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary State of Louisiana.
    No. 83-KH-0929.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 10, 1984.
   In re Donald Briggs, applying for writ of habeas corpus, Vermilion Parish, No. 19325.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana ex rel., John GORDON, Jr. v. Ross MAGGIO, Jr., Warden Louisiana State Penitentiary State of Louisiana.
    No. 83-KH-0952.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 10, 1984.
   In re John Gordon, Jr., applying for writ of habeas corpus, Parish of Orleans, No. 171-140.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana, Ex Rel. Sidney FRANK v. Ross MAGGIO, Jr., Warden.
    No. 83-KH-0954.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 10, 1984.
   In re Sidney Frank, applying for Remedial Writ, 36th Judicial District Court, Parish of Beauregard, No. CR-11243.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana, ex rel. Robert Dale HICKS v. Ross MAGGIO, Jr., Warden, John M. Mamoulides, District Attorney.
    No. 83-KH-0964.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 10, 1984.
   In re Robert Dale Hicks, applying for remedial writ, 24th Judicial District Court, Parish of Jefferson, No. 79-2613.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana ex rel., Travis E. BARKLEY v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 83-KH-0979.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 10, 1984.
   In re Travis E. Barkley, applying for writ of certiorari, Parish of Terrebonne, No. 97202.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana, ex rel. Theodore YOUNG v. Hon. L.H. COLTHARP, Jr., Judge, 36th Judicial District Court, Parish of Beauregard.
    No. 83-KH-0981.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 10, 1984.
   In re Theodore Young, applying for writs of certiorari and review, Beauregard Parish, No. CR-701-80.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana, ex rel. Vincent JAMES v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 83-KH-0988.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 10, 1984.
   In re Vincent James, applying for remedial writ, Criminal District Court, Parish of Orleans, No. 290-427.

Denied. Petitioner’s claim that he was twice put in jeopardy on simple escape offense has no merit.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Moses SUMMERELL, Jr.
    No. 83-KH-1004.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 10, 1984.
   In re Moses Summered, Jr., applying for remedial writ, Criminal District Court, Parish of Orleans, No. 287-128, Section “M”.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana, ex rel. Gerald FRANK & Robert Grant v. Ross MAGGIO, Jr., Warden.
    No. 83-KH-1379.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 10, 1984.
   In re Gerald Frank and Robert Grant, applying for supervisory writs, Criminal District Court, Parish of Orleans, No. 253-214, Section “F”.

Denied. A transcript of sentencing is apparently no longer available. In the absence of a contemporaneous record disclosing remarks to the contrary, we accept the trial court’s explanation that it was aware of its alternatives at the time it sentenced relators.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Leroy SMITH v. Ross MAGGIO, Jr. Warden Louisiana State Penitentiary.
    No. 83-KH-2324.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 10, 1984.
    Reconsideration Denied May 4, 1984.
   In re Leroy Smith, applying for writ of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, or habe-as corpus, to Criminal District Court, Parish of Orleans, No. 257-124, Section “E”.

Denied. Relator concedes in his application that “[a] fair reading of the judgment tends to indicate that the trial judge was aware that he could impose other sentencing alternative[s]....”


author: DENNIS, J.,

text:
    STATE of Louisiana ex rel., Moses SUMMERELL, Jr. v. CLERK, CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT.
    No. 83-KH-2365.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 10, 1984.
   In re Moses Summerell, Jr., applying for remedial writ from the Criminal District Court, Parish of Orleans, No. 287-128, Section “F”.

Denied.

DENNIS, J.,

concurs and notes that there was no appeal, therefore no documents with which relator can be provided.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Otto GOMEZ and Maria Layman.
    No. 83-KK-2645.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 10, 1984.
   In re Otto Gomez and Maria Layman, applying for supervisory writ to the 24th Judicial District Court, Parish of Jefferson, No. 83-3021; Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit.

Denied.

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


text:
    Burl J. THOMAS v. Herman JACKSON, Jr., et al. SOUTHERN COUNTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY v. STATE of Louisiana, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND DEVELOPMENT, et al.
    No. 84-C-0003.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 10, 1984.
   In re Herman Jackson, Jr., applying for writ of certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal Second Circuit, Nos. 15763-CA and 15764-CA; Parish of Red River, 39th Judicial District Court, Nos. 14616 and 14681.

Case below: 442 So.2d 1186.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Robert J. RODRIGUE.
    No. 84-K-0021.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 10, 1984.
   In re State of Louisiana, applying for writ of certiorari, or review to the First Circuit Court of Appeal, No. 83-KA-0256, from the Thirty-Second Judicial District Court, Parish of Terrebonne, No. 92627.

Case below: 441 So.2d 1274.

Denied.

LEMMON, J., would grant the writ.


text:
    Robert METRAILER v. CAMERON CABLE & CORDAGE, INC.
    No. 84-C-0028.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 10, 1984.
   In re Cameron Cable & Cordage, Inc., applying for certiorari, or writ of review to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 83-210; 38th Judicial District Court, Cameron Parish, No. 8501.

Case below: 440 So.2d 976.

Denied.

DENNIS, J., would grant the writ.


text:
    Tommy TOMMASEO v. Mrs. Deborah Ann GUIDROZ, Divorced Wife by First Marriage of Ralph Dufour, and Wife by Second Marriage of Tommy Tommaseo.
    No. 84-C-0037.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 10, 1984.
   In re Tommy Tommaseo, applying for writ of certiorari or review to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal, No. CA-0817; from the Thirty-Fourth Judicial District Court, Parish of St. Bernard, No. 40-122.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Edward THOMAS.
    No. 84-KK-0041.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 10, 1984.
   In re Rockwood Insurance Company, applying for remedial writ to the Criminal District Court, Parish of Orleans, No. 292-498, from the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal, No. K-1491.

Case below: 442 So.2d 794.

Denied.

MARCUS, J., would grant the writ.


text:
    Thomas H. CHAPMAN, et al. v. HOME INDEMNITY COMPANY.
    No. 84-C-0045.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 10, 1984.
   In re Thomas H. Chapman, et al., applying for writ of certiorari, and/or review to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 83-517; Parish of Calcasieu, 14th Judicial District Court, No. 82-194.

Case below: 442 So.2d 1388.

Denied.

WATSON, J., would grant the writ.


text:
    Leo Francis WHITNEY, Jr. v. William Roy MALLET, Jr., the City of Opelousas, Sheriff Howard Zerangue and Keith Savant.
    No. 84-C-0046.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 10, 1984.
   In re The City of Opelousas, applying for writ of certiorari or review to the Third Circuit Court of Appeal, No. CR-83-418, from the Twenty-Seventh Judicial District Court, Parish of St. Landry, No. 86210-2.

Case below: 442 So.2d 1361.

Denied.

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


text:
    Wilbur SENTILLES and Stephen Sentilles v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY.
    No. 84-C-0047.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 10, 1984.
   In re State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. CA-0899; Civil District Court, Parish of Orleans, No. 81-8741.

Case below: 443 So.2d 723.

Denied.

LEMMON, J., would grant the writ.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Joseph ROBINSON.
    No. 84-K-0049.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 10, 1984.
   In re Joseph Robinson, applying for writ of certiorari, to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal, No. KA-0996, from Criminal District Court, Parish of Orleans, No. 285-111, Section “I”.

Case below: 442 So.2d 827.

Denied.

CALOGERO and DENNIS, JJ„ would grant the writ.


text:
    William A. GUNTER v. LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF LABOR through its Secretary for Office of Employment Security, et al.
    No. 84-C-0054.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 10, 1984.
   In re William A. Gunter, applying for writ of certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. CA-1041, to the Civil District Court, Parish of Orleans, No. 82-12310.

Case below: 442 So.2d 804.

Denied.

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


text:
    Adam J. MASHIA v. Lucy POLLARD.
    No. 84-C-0057.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 10, 1984.
   In re Lucy Pollard, applying for writ of certiorari or review to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal, Nos. 83-CA-435 and 83-CA-436, from the Twenty-Ninth Judicial District Court Parish of St. Charles, Nos. 16835 and 15604.

Case below: 442 So.2d 1249.

Denied.


text:
    Lionel MADERE v. Cynthia A. SERPAS and Allstate Insurance Company.
    No. 84-C-0058.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 10, 1984.
   In re Lionel Madere, applying for writ of certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal Fourth Circuit, No. CA-0795; Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court, No. 78-1154.

Case below: 442 So.2d 842.

Denied.


text:
    Lillie COLE v. Jermaine ST. JAMES and New Orleans Public Service.
    No. 84-C-0060.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 10, 1984.
   In re New Orleans Public Service, Inc., applying for writ of review to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, No. CA-0821, from the Civil District Court, Parish of Orleans No. 81-5552.

Denied.


text:
    Dale THIBODAUX v. ACME TRUCK LINES, INC., Frederick Harding and the Continental Insurance Companies.
    No. 84-C-0066.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 10, 1984.
   In re Acme Truck Lines, Inc. and the Continental Insurance Companies, applying for writ of certiorari, or writ of review, to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal, No. 83-CA-456; Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court, No. 263-735, Division “E”.

Case below: 443 So.2d 716.

Denied.


text:
    Billy Ramon WILHITE v. Jackie Richerson, Wife of Billy Ramon WILHITE.
    No. 84-C-0069.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 10, 1984.
   In re Billy Ramon Wilhite, applying for writ of review, to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal, No. 83-CA-475, from the Twenty-Fourth Judicial District Court, Parish of Jefferson, No. 228-468.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Lawrence BERNARD.
    No. 84-K-0071.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 10, 1984.
   In re Lawrence Bernard, applying for writ of certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CR83-429; Parish of Acadia, 15th Judicial District Court, No. 35045, Section B.

Case below: 441 So.2d 817.

Denied.


text:
    Valerie Ann DUCOTE v. Rodney J. DUCOTE, Jr.
    No. 84-C-0075.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 10, 1984.
   In re Rodney J. Ducote, Jr., applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 83-318; 14th Judicial District Court, Parish of Calcasieu, No. 82-6469.

Case below: 442 So.2d 1299.

Denied.

DENNIS, J., would grant the writ on issue No. 2.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Ramus J. BENOIT, Jr. v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 84-KH-0126.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 10, 1984.
   In re Ramus J. Benoit, Jr., applying for writ of certiorari, prohibition or mandamus, to the 14th Judicial District Court, Parish of Calcasieu, No. 14729-81.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Jerald R. SLANKARD v. Sheriff Charles C. FOTI, Jr.
    No. 84-KH-0127.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 10, 1984.
   In re Jerald R. Slankard, applying for remedial writs, to the Criminal District Court, Parish of Orleans, No. 271-896.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Peter LaCOSTE.
    No. 84-KH-0227.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 10, 1984.
   In re Peter LaCoste, applying for remedial writs, Criminal District Court, Parish of Orleans, No. 267-766.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Warren FRANCOIS.
    No. 84-KH-0228.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 10, 1984.
   In re Warren Francois, applying for writ of habeas corpus, to the Twenty-Fourth Judicial District Court, Parish of Jefferson, No. 81-1276.

Denied.


text:
    John SHILLING v. Harry LEE.
    No. 84-KH-0231.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 10, 1984.
   In re John Shilling, applying for writ of habeas corpus, to the Twenty-Fourth Judicial District Court, Parish of Jefferson, No. 81-665.

Denied.


text:
    Doretha GREEN v. The LOUISIANA COCA COLA BOTTLING CO., LTD.
    No. 84-CC-0232.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 10, 1984.
   In re Doretha Green, applying for writ of review, to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal, No. C-1661; Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court, No. 82-19446.

Denied.


text:
    Lionel JACKSON v. MALONEY TRUCKING AND STORAGE, INC.
    No. 84-C-0055.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 10, 1984.
   In re Maloney Trucking and Storage, Inc., applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 13,213; Civil District Court, Parish of Orleans, No. 80-3852.

Case below: 424 So.2d 1037.

Denied.

LEMMON, J., would grant the writ.


text:
    Joseph N. LANDRY v. BILL GARRETT CHEVROLET, INC., General Motors Corporation, and Royal Globe Insurance Company.
    No. 84-C-0035.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 10, 1984.
    Reconsideration Denied March 9, 1984.
   In re Joseph N. Landry, applying for writ of certiorari or review to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal, No. 13217, from Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans, No. 77-11213.

Case below: 443 So.2d 1139.

Denied.

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


text:
    Joseph N. LANDRY, Sr. v. BILL GARRETT CHEVROLET, INC., General Motors Corporation, and Royal Globe Insurance Company.
    No. 84-C-0061.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 10, 1984.
   In re General Motors Corporation and Royal Globe Insurance Company, applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 13217; Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans, No. 77-11213.

Case below: 443 So.2d 1139.

Denied.

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


text:
    Alice Faye Frazier CLOUD v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY. Alice Faye Frazier CLOUD v. Carson CLOUD.
    No. 84-C-0034.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 10, 1984.
   In re Alice Faye Frazier Cloud, applying for writ of certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Nos. 83-198 and 83-199; to the 10th Judicial District Court, Parish of Natchitoches, Nos. 49926-B and 50814.

Case below: 440 So.2d 961, 440 So.2d 965.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Vernon SIMMS.
    No. 84-KH-0136.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 10, 1984.
   In re Vernon Simms, applying for a remedial writ from the Criminal District Court, Parish of Orleans, No. 282-741.

Denied.


text:
    LOUISIANA STATE BAR ASSOCIATION v. Joseph Neves MARCAL, III.
    No. 84-OB-0233.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 10, 1984.
   In re Joseph Neves Marcal, III, applying for reinstatement to the Louisiana State Bar.

Denied.


text:
    In re Patrick Hough HARRINGTON.
    No. 84-OB-0242.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 10, 1984.
   In re Patrick Hough Harrington, applying for appeal of denial of application to take Louisiana State Bar Examination.

Denied. After one year has elapsed since this Court’s July, 1983 denial of reíator’s application, relator may file another application and may submit to the Bar Association evidence of his rehabilitation.

DIXON, C.J., and DENNIS, J., were not present.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Steve WILLIAMS.
    No. 84-KD-0284.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 13, 1984.
   In re State of Louisiana, applying for supervisory writ to the Twelfth Judicial District Court, Parish of Avoyelles, Nos. 53482 and 53483.

On request of district attorney, application dismissed as moot.


text:
    Carolyn PINKNEY, Individually and on Behalf of her Deceased Husband, James Pinkney v. Alfred MILLER and New Orleans Public Service, Inc.
    No. 83-C-2186.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 16, 1984.
   In re Carolyn Pinkney, applying for reconsideration of denied writ of January 16, 1984, 444 So.2d 117, from the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal No. 0598; Civil District Court, Parish of Orleans, No. 70-15686, Div. A.

Qase beiow; 439 So.2d 1113.

Reconsideration denied. The judgment is definitive.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana ex rel., Carl BENION v. Hon. Rudolph F. BECKER, III, Criminal District Court, Sect. E, Parish of Orleans.
    No. 83-KH-1035.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 16, 1984.
   In re Carl Benion, applying for writ of mandamus, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court, No. 226-712, Sect. E.

Granted. The trial court is ordered to furnish relator a guilty plea transcript in No. 226-712 E.


text:
    Raymond JOHNSON v. INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA and Louisiana Seed Company et al.
    No. 83-C-2628.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 16, 1984.
   In re Raymond Johnson, applying for writs of certiorari and review, from the Third Circuit Court of Appeal, No. 83-206, Parish of Rapides, to the Ninth Judicial District Court, No. 122727.

Case below: 440 So.2d 1385.

Granted.


text:
    Meriam J. Mauthe Wife of/and Christopher C. FERRIS v. Roy L. PRICE.
    No. 84-CC-0201.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 16, 1984.
   In re Meriam J. Mauthe Wife of/and Christopher C. Ferris, applying for motion and order to transfer litigation for trial to Twenty-Second Judicial District Court; and, further subject to Jurisdiction of Court of Appeal, State of Louisiana, First Circuit, to the 24th Judicial District Court, Parish of Jefferson, Nos. 145-210 and 145-211.

Granted. It is ordered that the case be transferred to 22nd Judicial District Court for trial. .


text:
    STATE of Louisiana ex rel., Bruce E. CHOYCE, v. Criminal District Court Magistrate, Andrew J. SCIAMBRA, for State of Louisiana.
    No. 84-KH-0163.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 16, 1984.
   In re Bruce E. Choyce, applying for writ of habeas corpus to the Criminal District Court, Parish of Orleans, No. 279-940.

Granted to transfer to trial court.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Joseph V. FOSTER, Jr. v. Abe ROSS, Warden, Livingston Parish Jail and 21st Judicial District Court.
    No. 84-KH-0251.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 16, 1984.
   In re Joseph Y. Foster, Jr., applying for writ of habeas corpus, 21st Judicial District Court, Livingston Parish.

Granted for the purpose of transferring this matter to the 1st Circuit Court of Appeal for action in accordance with law.


text:
    PAN AMERICAN IMPORT COMPANY, INC. v. Katherine Hebert, wife of/and Julius K. BUCK, and Janet Buck, wife of/and Jerry Verrette.
    No. 83-C-2558.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 16, 1984.
   In re Janet Buck, wife of/and Jerry Ver-rette, applying for writ of certiorari or review to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal, No. CA-0697, from Civil District Court, Parish of Orleans, Nos. 82-141, 81-10930 and 78-8274.

Case below: 440 So.2d 182.

Granted as to A/E No. 1, relative to separation of property judgment; otherwise denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Charles BRUMMETT.
    No. 84-KK-0280.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 16, 1984.
   In re Charles Brummett, applying for writ of certiorari and stay order to the Third Circuit Court of Appeal, No. K84-100; 35th Judicial District Court, Parish of Grant, No. 43849.

Writ denied. Stay order set aside.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana ex rel., Jimmy JILES v. Donald R. GUILLORY, Warden.
    No. 83-KH-0934.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 16, 1984.
   In re Jimmy Jiles, applying for writ of review, from the Second Judicial District Court, Parish of Jackson, No. 17660.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana, ex rel. Leroy RICHARDSON v. Ross MAGGIO, Jr., Warden, John to King, Secretary of Department of Corrections.
    No. 83-KH-0983.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 16, 1984.
   In re Leroy Richardson, applying for writ of certiorari, or review, West Feliciana Parish, 20th Judicial District Court, No. 8693-A.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana, ex rel. Percy L. TATE v. Ross MAGGIO, Jr., Warden.
    No. 83-KH-1024.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 16, 1984.
    Reconsideration Denied March 23, 1984.
   In re Percy L. Tate, applying for remedial writ, Criminal District Court, Parish of Orleans, No. 255-943.

Denied. Relator must first file in the district court.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana ex rel., Allen Jerome BURTON v. Michael BEAUBOUEF, Warden Hunt Correctional Center.
    No. 83-KH-1028.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 16, 1984.
   In re Allen Jerome Burton, applying for supervisory writs and writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus, Parish of Tan-gipahoa, No. 44262, 21st Judicial District Court.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana, ex rel., Steve PERKINS v. Ross MAGGIO, Jr., Warden.
    No. 83-KH-1030.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 16, 1984.
   In re Steve. Perkins, applying for writ of habeas corpus, mandamus, certiorari, and other remedial writs, 19th Judicial District Court, Parish of East Baton Rouge, No. 1-75-5676, Section III.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana, ex rel., Carl BENION v. Ross MAGGIO, Jr., Warden.
    No. 83-KH-1031.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 16, 1984.
   In re Carl Benion, applying for writ of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, or habe-as corpus, Criminal District Court, Parish of Orleans, No. 251-206, Section “E”.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana, ex rel. Cressie M. DIAMOND v. Hon. William F. KLINE, Jr., Judge, 20th Judicial District Court, Parish of East Feliciana, Clinton, Louisiana.
    No. 83-KH-1032.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 16, 1984.
   In re Cressie M. Diamond, applying for writs of certiorari and review, 20th Judicial District Court, Parish of East Feliciana, No. 3-80-426.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana, ex rel., Elbert STEWART v. Ross MAGGIO, Jr., Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary.
    No. 83-KH-1054.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 16, 1984.
   In re Elbert Stewart, applying for writ of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus or habeas corpus, Parish of Caddo, No. 105-812-HC.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana ex rel., Leotis WEBSTER v. Ross MAGGIO, Jr. Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary.
    No. 83-KH-1111.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 16, 1984.
   In re Leotis Webster, applying for writ of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus or ha-beas corpus, from the Fourth Judicial District Court, Parish of Morehouse, No. 18500.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana, ex rel., Wayne J. DAVOLL v. Ross MAGGIO, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary.
    No. 83-KH-1120.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 16, 1984.
   In re Wayne J. Davoll, applying for remedial writ of certiorari and habeas corpus, Parish of Iberia, No. 52406.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana ex rel., Brogan C. YOUNG v. Ross MAGGIO, Jr.
    No. 83-KH-1128.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 16, 1984.
   In re Brogan C. Young, applying for writ of certiorari, Parish of Orleans, No. 234-610.

Denied.

DENNIS, J., would order an evidentiary hearing.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana, ex rel. James WILLIAMS v. Hon. Leon J. LeSUEUR, Judge, Division “A”, 23rd Judicial District Court Parish of Assumption, State of Louisiana.
    No. 83-KH-1158.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 16, 1984.
   In re James Williams, applying for writ of mandamus, Assumption Parish, 23rd Judicial District Court, Nos. 33248, 248-A.

Denied. Moot.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana ex rel., Mark S. PHILYAW v. CLERK OF COURT, PARISH OF RED RIVER 39TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT.
    No. 83-KH-1162.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 16, 1984.
   In re Mark S. Philyaw, applying for writ of mandamus, Parish of Red River, No. 35580.

Denied. Moot.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana, ex rel. Mark J. DUHON v. Ross MAGGIO, Jr., Warden.
    No. 83-KH-1220.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 16, 1984.
   In re Mark J. Duhon, applying for writs of certiorari or habeas corpus, 24th Judicial District Court, Parish of Jefferson, No. 77-1963.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana, ex rel., Glenn COLMAN v. STATE of Louisian, et al.
    No. 83-KH-2211.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 16, 1984.
   In re Glenn Colman, applying for writ of certiorari, Parish of Orleans, No. 273-400.

Denied.


text:
    Rhonda BROOME v. Wendell H. GAUTHIER and State Farm Fire & Casualty Company. Margaret BARBER, Richard T. McGawley, Karen A. Randazzo and L. Robin Capozzi Waddell v. Wendell H. GAUTHIER and State Farm Fire & Casualty Company.
    No. 83-C-2516.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 16, 1984.
   In re Wendell H. Gauthier and State Farm Fire & Casualty Company, applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Nó. CA-0709 and CA-0710; Civil District Court, Parish of Orleans, Nos. 80-10208, 80-17862.

Case below: 443 So.2d 1127.

Denied.

MARCUS and BLANCHE, JJ„ would grant the writ.


text:
    Albert M. STALL v. LOUISIANA STATE RACING COMMISSION.
    No. 84-C-0036.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 16, 1984.
   In re Albert M. Stall, applying for writ of certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. CA-0608; to the Civil District Court; Parish of Orleans, No. 82-11088, Division “D”.

Case below: 442 So.2d 789.

Denied.

MARCUS, DENNIS and WATSON, JJ„ would grant the writ.


text:
    DREW DEVELOPMENT CO., INC., Dreaux Ltd. and Langford Realty Company v. HIBERNIA NATIONAL BANK OF NEW ORLEANS.
    No. 84-C-0040.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 16, 1984.
   In re Drew Development Co., Inc., Dreaux Ltd. and Langford Realty Company, applying for writ of certiorari to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal, No. 83-CA-433; 24th Judicial District Court, Parish of Jefferson, No. 270-862, Division “C”.

Case below: 442 So.2d 1229.

Denied.

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


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Horace J. WASHINGTON.
    No. 84-KD-0067.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 16, 1984.
   In re Horace J. Washington, applying for a writ of review to the First Circuit Court of Appeal, No. 83-KA-0760, from the Seventeenth Judicial District Court, Parish of Lafourche, No. 120-719.

Case below: 444 So.2d 320.

Denied.

CALOGERO, J., would grant the writ.


text:
    Mrs. Jerry SMITH, Born Cheryl Edlyn Stephens v. Roy B. STEPHENS, Dow L. Stephens and Jeanette Stephens Proctor.
    No. 84-C-0109.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 16, 1984.
   In re Mrs. Jerry Smith, born Cheryl Ed-lyn Stephens, applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 83-515; to the 30th Judicial District Court, Parish of Vernon, No. 30184.

Case below: 443 So.2d 11.

Denied.


text:
    James D. SANDEFUR, O.D. and W.E. Marionneaux, Jr., O.D. v. William A. CHERRY, M.D., Secretary of the Louisiana Department of Health and Human Resources, et al.
    No. 84-CQ-0083.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 16, 1984.
   In re Certification from the United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, No. 82-3564, 721 F.2d 511.

(Certification) Granted. Briefs ordered.


text:
    Wilene Adele Willoughby WATSON v. Willie Otto WATSON.
    No. 84-C-0095.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 16, 1984.
   In re Wilene Adele Willoughby Watson, applying for writs of certiorari and of review, to the Third Circuit Court of Appeal, Parish of Rapides, No. 83-306, from the Ninth Judicial District Court, No. 123748, See. “F.”

Case below: 442 So.2d 1310.

Denied.

DENNIS, J., would grant the writ.


text:
    Clifton HENRY, et al. v. PITRE FORD COMPANY, et al., Individually and as a Partnership, and Corporation, and Ford Motor Company.
    No. 84-C-0096.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 16, 1984.
   In re Clifton Henry, et al., applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 83-382; 13th Judicial District Court, Parish of Evangeline, No. 37202-B.

Case below: 442 So.2d 1338.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Rickey JOHNSON.
    No. 84-K-0097.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 16, 1984.
   In re Rickey Johnson, applying for writs of certiorari and/or review, from the Eleventh Judicial District Court, No. 30770, Parish of Sabine, to the Third Circuit Court of Appeal, No. CR 83-358.

Case below: 443 So.2d 766.

Denied.


text:
    L.W. SMITH, Individually and as Administrator of the Estate of his Minor Daughter, Sonja Leigh Smith v. VERNON PARISH SCHOOL BOARD.
    No. 84-C-0100.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 16, 1984.
   In re L.W. Smith, applying for writ of certiorari, to the Third Circuit Court of Appeal, Parish of Vernon, No. 83-367, from the Thirtieth Judicial District Court, No. 35795.

Case below: 442 So.2d 1319.

Denied.

DENNIS, J., would grant the writ.


text:
    Deborah Lanclos JOHNSON v. John W. JOHNSON, Jr.
    No. 84-C-0107.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 16, 1984.
   In re Deborah Landos Johnson, applying for writs of certiorari and review, to the Third Circuit Court of Appeal, No. 83-351, from the Twenty-Seventh Judicial District Court, Parish of St. Landry, No. 79,944-

Case below: 442 So.2d 901.

Denied.


text:
    Irvin B. ELDEMIRE v. Everett SHILTS.
    No. 84-C-0108.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 16, 1984.
   In re Irvin B. Eldemire, applying for a writ of certiorari or review to the Third Circuit Court of Appeal, No. 83-411 from the Fourteenth Judicial District Court, Parish of Calcasieu, No. 82-858.

Case below: 442 So.2d 1351.

Denied.

DENNIS, J., would grant the writ.


text:
    Clark FARNSWORTH, Ind., et al. v. LUMBERMEN’S MUTUAL CASUALTY COMPANY, et al.
    No. 84-C-0110.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 16, 1984.
   In re Clark Farnsworth, Ind., et al., applying for writ of certiorari or review to the Third Circuit Court of Appeal, No. 83-399, from the Twenty-Seventh Judicial District Court, Parish of St. Landry, No. 86029-1.

Case below: 442 So.2d 1340.

Denied.


text:
    Mary Ann MEAD v. Barry Dale MEAD. Barry Dale MEAD v. Mary Ann Cundiff, Wife of Barry Dale MEAD.
    No. 84-C-0111.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 16, 1984.
   In re Mary Ann Mead, applying for cer-tiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Nos. 83-269 and 83-270; 9th Judicial District Court, Rapides Parish, Nos. 112885 and 112914.

Case below: 442 So.2d 870.

Denied.

WATSON, J., would grant the writ.


text:
    Julie Faber DUNSHEE, Individually, and as Natural Tutrix of her minor child, Christopher Joseph Bell a/k/a Christopher Joseph Dunshee v. Jerome H. COMFORT, Jr., Individually, and as Administrator of the Estate of his minor son, Robbie Comfort, and South Carolina Insurance Company.
    No. 84-C-0117.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 16, 1984.
   In re Julie Faber Dunshee, applying for writ of certiorari, to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal, No. 83-CA-405, from the Twenty-Fourth Judicial District Court, Parish of Jefferson, No. 255-459.

Case below: 441 So.2d 75.

Denied.

DENNIS, J., would grant the writ.


text:
    Ansel L. CREARY, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY and Joseph C. Badeaux.
    No. 84-C-0119.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 16, 1984.
   In re Ansel L. Creary, applying for writ of certiorari and/or review to the First Circuit Court of Appeal, No. 83-CA-0249; 19th Judicial District Court, Parish of East Baton Rouge, No. 252727.

Denied.

BLANCHE, J., would grant the writ.


text:
    Ansel L. CREARY v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY and Joseph C. Badeaux.
    No. 84-C-0141.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 16, 1984.
   In re State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company and Joseph C. Badeaux, applying for writ of certiorari, to the First Circuit Court of Appeal, No. 83-CA-0249, from the Nineteenth Judicial District Court, Parish of East Baton Rouge, No. 252727.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Billy Roy TYLER v. 26TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF BOSSIER PARISH, 2nd Circuit, La., Court of Appeal.
    No. 84-KH-0205.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 16, 1984.
   In re Billy Roy Tyler, applying for remedial writs from Twenty-Sixth Judicial District Court, No. 16-214 KH, Parish of Bossier.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Warren FRANCOIS, Jr. v. Chief Al PAYNE, Warden and William Guste, Attorney General.
    No. 84-KH-0236.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 16, 1984.
   In re Warren Francois, Jr., applying for writ of habeas corpus from the Twenty-Fourth Judicial District Court, Parish of Jefferson.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Charles BANKS.
    No. 84-KK-0264.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 16, 1984.
   In re Charles Banks, applying for writs of certiorari, review, mandamus, and a stay order, from the Twenty-First Judicial District Court, Parish of Tangipahoa, No. 48110; First Circuit Court of Appeal, No. KW-84-0092.

Denied.

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


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Charles BANKS.
    No. 84-KK-0307.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 16, 1984.
   In re Charles Banks, applying for writs of certiorari, review, prohibition, mandamus, and stay order, from the 21st Judicial District Court, Parish of Tangipahoa, No. 48132, to the First Circuit Court of Appeal, No. KW 84-0145.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. H.M. “Mike” CANNON.
    No. 84-KP-0031.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 16, 1984.
   In re H.M. “Mike” Cannon, applying for supervisory writs of review, mandamus and certiorari, Parish of East Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court, No. 7-79-451.

Granted: The trial court is ordered to reduce petitioner’s probationary term to two years. See C Cr P 894. The writ is otherwise denied.

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


text:
    STATE of Louisiana, ex rel., David Wayne HUNTER v. Donald R. GUILLORY, Warden Wade Correctional Center.
    No. 83-KH-2384.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 16, 1984.
   In re David Wayne Hunter, applying for writs of certiorari, habeas corpus, mandamus to the Second Judicial District Court, Nos. 14648 and 14649, Parish of Claiborne.

Granted. The sentence is vacated and the case is remanded for reconsideration of sentence in light of Williams v. Illinois, 399 U.S. 235, 90 S.Ct. 2018, 26 L.Ed.2d 586 (1970).


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. James PORTER, Jr.,
    No. 84-KK-0089.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 16, 1984.
   In re State of Louisiana, applying for writ of certiorari and/or review to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal, No. K-1702; Criminal District Court, Parish of Orleans, No. 294-589.

Denied. The result is correct; State v. Everett, 432 So.2d 250 (La.1983) does not control. See State v. Jaye, 383 So.2d 1261 (La.1980) instead.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Charles JACKSON.
    No. 84-KK-0090.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 16, 1984.
   In re Charles Jackson, applying for a supervisory writ to the Twenty-Fourth Judicial District Court, Parish of Jefferson, No. 83-604, from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal, No. 83-K-863.

Granted. The case is remanded to the court of appeal for briefing, argument and opinion in the light of State v. Ossey, 446 So.2d 280 (1984), which appears to be distinguishable on the facts.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Howard DAVIS, Jr.
    No. 83-K-2358.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 16, 1984.
   In re Howard Davis, Jr., applying for reconsideration of writ not considered, dated January 6, 1984, 443 So.2d 1123, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CR 83-276; 31st Judicial District Court, Parish of Jefferson Davis, No. CR-4028-81.

Case below: 438 So.2d 1288.

Reconsideration granted on the issue of timeliness. On the merits, the writ is denied.