text:
    In re Edwin D. HAWKINS.
    No. 2012-B-0211.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 9, 2012.
   ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS

PER CURIAM.

11 This disciplinary matter arises from formal charges filed by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (“ODC”) against respondent, Edwin D. Hawkins, an attorney licensed to practice law in Louisiana, but currently suspended from practice.

PRIOR DISCIPLINARY HISTORY

Before we address the current charges, we find it helpful to review respondent’s prior disciplinary history. Respondent was admitted to the practice of law in Louisiana in 1996. In 2002, respondent was publicly reprimanded by the disciplinary board for neglecting legal matters, failing to communicate with clients, and failing to cooperate with the ODC in its investigations.

In 2008, this court suspended respondent from the practice of law for two years for neglecting legal matters, failing to communicate with clients, failing to refund unearned fees, charging excessive fees due to impermissible non-refundable language in his contract, failing to comply with obligations upon termination of a representation, and failing to cooperate with the ODC in its investigation. In re: Hawkins, 07-1619 (La.2/22/08), 974 So.2d 1280 (“Hawkins I ”). Respondent has not sought reinstatement from his suspension in Hawkins I; thus, he remains suspended from the practice of law.

12Against this backdrop, we now turn to a consideration of the misconduct at issue in the present matter.

FORMAL CHARGES

Count I — The Williams Matter

In April 2002, Horace Williams hired respondent to handle his traffic violation. Mr. Williams paid respondent a total of $1,200 for the representation.

In May 2002, respondent appeared in court on Mr. Williams’ behalf, but thereafter failed to appear for any other court dates. Following the initial court appearance, Mr. Williams was unable to communicate with respondent and assumed the matter had been handled. However, when he subsequently tried to renew his driver’s license, Mr. Williams learned that a warrant had been issued for his arrest for failing to appear in court for a September 2002 hearing regarding the traffic violation.

After respondent received a copy of the disciplinary complaint filed against him in this matter, he indicated that he would refund a portion of the fee. However, he failed to do so and has since stopped cooperating with the ODC.

The ODC alleged respondent’s conduct violated the following provisions of the Rules of Professional Conduct: Rules 1.2 (scope of the representation), 1.3 (failure to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client), 1.4 (failure to communicate with a client), 1.5(f)(6) (failure to refund an unearned fee), 1.15 (safekeeping property of clients or third parties), 1.16(d) (obligations upon termination of the representation), 3.2 (failure to make reasonable efforts to expedite litigation), 8.1(c) (failure to cooperate with the ODC in its investigation), and 8.4(c) (engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation).

|aCount II — The Johnson Matter

In February 2004, Judy Johnson hired respondent to represent her son, Javar Johnson, in a post-conviction relief matter. Ms. Johnson agreed to a $10,000 fee for the representation, of which she paid $2,000 as a down payment and agreed to pay $500 per month on the remaining balance.

Respondent filed a memorandum in support of an application for post-conviction relief, but he failed to file the actual application or any of the referenced exhibits. Respondent’s failure to file the application for post-conviction relief resulted in the denial of Mr. Johnson’s request by the trial court. The record further suggests that respondent failed to file a writ application with the court of appeal following the trial court’s ruling. Nevertheless, respondent did not refund any portion of the fee Ms. Johnson paid him.

In February 2007, respondent was personally served with a copy of the disciplinary complaint filed against him in this matter. However, he failed to respond or provide proof of any refunds to the John-sons.

The ODC alleged respondent’s conduct violated the following provisions of the Rules of Professional Conduct: Rules 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5(f)(5) (failure to refund an unearned fee), 1.15, 1.16(d), 3.2, 8.1(c), and 8.4(c).

Count III — The Crockens Matter

In January 2005, Joanne Crockens hired respondent to represent her son, Clinton Crockens, Jr., in a criminal matter. Ms. Crockens paid $7,500 toward respondent’s $25,000 fee before respondent relocated to Florida following Hurricane Katrina.

Respondent enrolled as Mr. Crockens’ counsel of record and made four court appearances on his behalf before Hurricane Katrina. However, after respondent relocated to Florida, he failed to appear for any additional court dates. |4He also failed to file the necessary pleadings on Mr. Crockens’ behalf, failed to communicate with the Crockens family regarding his relocation, and ultimately abandoned the case. Nevertheless, respondent did not refund any portion of the fee Ms. Crockens paid him.

. In February 2007, respondent was personally served with a copy of the disciplinary complaint filed against him in this matter. However, he failed to respond or provide proof of any refunds to the Crock-ens.

The ODC alleged respondent’s conduct violated the following provisions of the Rules of Professional Conduct: Rules 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5(f)(5), 1.15, 1.16(d), 3.2, 8.1(c), and 8.4(c).

Count TV — The Granier Matter

In December 2003, Justin Granier hired respondent to represent him in a criminal matter. Specifically, Mr. Granier paid respondent $3,500 of a $5,000 fee for respondent to appear at his sentencing hearing and perfect an appeal on his behalf.

Respondent arrived late for the sentencing hearing and then failed to timely perfect Mr. Granier’s appeal. Following Hurricane Katrina, Mr. Granier was unable to communicate with respondent, who ultimately abandoned the case. Nevertheless, respondent did not refund any portion of the fee Mr. Granier paid him.

In February 2007, respondent was personally served with a copy of the disciplinary complaint filed against him in this matter. However, he failed to respond or provide proof of any refunds to Mr. Granier.

The ODC alleged respondent’s conduct violated the following provisions of the Rules of Professional Conduct: Rules 1.2, 1.3,1.4, 1.5(f)(5), 1.15, 1.16(d), 3.2, 8.1(c), and 8.4(c).

|fiCount V — The Bell Matter

In June 2006, Kathy Bell hired respondent to represent her husband in a criminal matter. Despite the fact that Ms. Bell paid respondent $1,500 for his services, he failed to take any action on her husband’s behalf. He also failed to refund any portion of the fee Ms. Bell paid him.

In February 2007, respondent was personally served with a copy of the disciplinary complaint filed against him in this matter. However, he failed to respond or provide proof of any refunds to Ms. Bell.

The ODC alleged respondent’s conduct violated the following provisions of the Rules of Professional Conduct: Rules 1.2, 1.3,1.4, 1.5(f)(5), 1.15, 1.16(d), 3.2, 8.1(c), and 8.4(c).

Count VI — The Demouchet Matter

In July 2005, respondent enrolled as counsel of record for Dwayne Demouchet in a criminal matter. Mr. Demouchet’s mother paid respondent approximately $1,000 for the representation. Respondent appeared in court only once on Mr. De-mouchet’s behalf. The court’s efforts to locate respondent with respect to subsequent court dates were unsuccessful. Nevertheless, respondent did not refund any portion of the fee Mr. Demouchet’s mother paid him.

Despite its best efforts, the ODC was unsuccessful in notifying respondent via mail of the disciplinary complaint filed against him in this matter.

The ODC alleged respondent’s conduct violated the following provisions of the Rules of Professional Conduct: Rules 1.2, 1.3,1.4, 1.5(f)(5), 1.15, 1.16(d), 3.2, 8.1(c), and 8.4(c).

| fíCount VII — The Spencer Matter

In October 2003, Mervin Spencer hired respondent to represent him in a criminal matter and a forfeiture matter involving the retrieval of two vehicles that were seized in connection with his arrest. Mr. Spencer paid respondent $2,000 for the criminal matter and $2,000 for the forfeiture matter.

Mr. Spencer was acquitted of all criminal charges, but respondent failed to pursue the forfeiture matter. Nevertheless, respondent did not refund any portion of the fee Mr. Spencer paid him.

Despite its best efforts, the ODC was unsuccessful in notifying respondent via mail of the disciplinary complaint filed against him in this matter.

The ODC alleged respondent’s conduct violated the following provisions of the Rules of Professional Conduct: Rules 1.2, 1.3,1.4, 1.5(f)(5), 1.15, 1.16(d), 3.2, 8.1(c), and 8.4(c).

DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS

In January 2010, the ODC filed formal charges against respondent. Respondent failed to answer the formal charges. Accordingly, the factual allegations contained therein were deemed admitted and proven by clear and convincing evidence pursuant to Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 11(E)(3). No formal hearing was held, but the parties were given an opportunity to file with the hearing committee written arguments and documentary evidence on the issue of sanctions. Respondent filed nothing for the hearing committee’s consideration.

Hearing Committee RepoH

After considering the ODC’s deemed admitted submission, the hearing committee found that all facts as set forth in the formal charges are deemed admitted and proven. Additionally, the committee found that the documentary 17evidence submitted by the ODC supports the deemed admitted factual allegations. Based on these facts, the committee determined that respondent violated the Rules of Professional Conduct as alleged in the formal charges.

The committee further determined that respondent knowingly and intentionally violated duties owed to his clients, the public, the legal system, and the legal profession. He caused actual harm to his clients, whose legal matters he abandoned and whose unearned fees he converted to his own use. After reviewing the ABA’s Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, the committee determined that the applicable baseline sanction is disbarment.

In aggravation, the committee found the following factors: prior disciplinary offenses, a dishonest or selfish motive, a pattern of misconduct, multiple offenses, bad faith obstruction of the disciplinary proceeding by intentionally failing to comply with the rales or orders of the disciplinary agency, and substantial experience in the practice of law (admitted 1996). The committee did not find any mitigating factors present.

Under these circumstances, the committee recommended that respondent be disbarred. The committee also recommended that respondent be ordered to refund all unearned fees to his clients.

The ODC filed an objection to the hearing committee’s report and recommendation, arguing that disbarment is too lenient and recommending that respondent be permanently disbarred.

Disciplinary Board Recommendation

After review, the disciplinary board agreed with the hearing committee that the factual allegations of the formal charges are deemed admitted and proven by clear and convincing evidence. The board also agreed with the committee that respondent [ ¡^violated the Rules of Professional Conduct as alleged in the formal charges.

The board further determined that respondent knowingly and intentionally violated duties owed to his clients, the public, the legal system, and the legal profession. Respondent engaged in a deceptive pattern of collecting fees from clients and then performing little or no legal services in exchange for those fees. He abandoned his clients’ legal matters and converted their unearned fees to his own use, resulting in actual harm to the clients. He also failed to cooperate with the ODC in its investigations and failed to participate in the disciplinary process. The board agreed with the committee that the baseline sanction in this matter is disbarment.

In aggravation, the board found the following factors: prior disciplinary offenses, a dishonest or selfish motive, a pattern of misconduct, multiple offenses, bad faith obstruction of the disciplinary proceeding by intentionally failing to comply with the rules or orders of the disciplinary agency, deceptive practices during the disciplinary process by failing to keep promises made to produce documentation, refusal to acknowledge the wrongful nature of the conduct, substantial experience in the practice of law, and indifference to making restitution. Like the committee, the board did not find any mitigating factors present.

Turning to the issue of an appropriate sanction, the board first considered whether the approach established by this court in Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Chatelain, 573 So.2d 470 (La.1991), is applicable in this matter. In Chatelain, the court held that when the underlying misconduct occurs within the same time period as the misconduct forming the basis of a previously imposed sanction, the discipline imposed in the subsequent proceeding should be determined as if both proceedings were before the court simultaneously. The board noted that the instant misconduct occurred between 2002 and 2006, with the failure to cooperate with the |9ODC extending through 2010, while the misconduct in Hawkins I occurred between 2003 and 2004. Although acknowledging that there is some overlap between the time periods, the board ultimately determined that the instant misconduct extended well beyond the misconduct in Hawkins I. Therefore, the board determined that the Chatelain approach does not apply in the instant matter.

The board then considered respondent’s misconduct in light of Guideline 1 (repeated or multiple instances of intentional conversion of client funds with substantial harm) of the permanent disbarment guidelines and the prior jurisprudence of this court. Having determined that Guideline 1 is applicable, the board recommended that respondent be permanently disbarred. The board also recommended that respondent be ordered to make restitution to his victims.

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

DISCUSSION

Bar disciplinary matters fall within the original jurisdiction of. this court. La. Const, art. V, § 5(B). Consequently, we act as triers of fact and conduct an independent review of the record to determine whether the alleged misconduct has been proven by clear and convincing evidence. In re: Banks, 09-1212 (La.10/2/09), 18 So.3d 57.

In cases in which the lawyer does not answer the formal charges, the factual allegations of those charges are deemed admitted. Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 11(E)(3). Thus, the ODC bears no additional burden to prove the factual allegations contained in the formal charges after those charges have been deemed admitted. However, the language of § 11(E)(3) does not encompass legal conclusions that flow from the factual allegations. If the legal conclusion the ODC seeks to prove (i.e., a violation of a specific rule) is not readily apparent from the |1fldeemed admitted facts, additional evidence may need to be submitted in order to prove the legal conclusions that flow from the admitted factual allegations. In re: Donnan, 01-3058 (La.1/10/03), 838 So.2d 715.

The record in this deemed admitted matter supports a finding that respondent neglected legal matters, failed to communicate with his clients, failed to properly withdraw from the representation of his clients, failed to refund unearned fees, and failed to cooperate with the ODC in its investigations. Based on these facts, respondent has violated the Rules of Professional Conduct as charged by the ODC.

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

The record supports a finding that respondent knowingly and intentionally violated duties owed to his clients, the legal system, and the legal profession. His misconduct caused significant actual harm. The baseline sanction for this type of misconduct is disbarment.

Inin its report, the disciplinary board concluded that respondent’s offenses are so egregious that he should be permanently prohibited from applying for readmission to the bar. We agree. Respondent failed to refund more than $26,000 in unearned fees to at least seven clients, effectively converting those funds to his own use. As such, we find that respondent’s conduct amounts to repeated or multiple instances of intentional conversion of client funds with substantial harm, as contemplated by Guideline 1 of the permanent disbarment guidelines set forth in Supreme Court Rule XIX, Appendix E.

Respondent’s conduct demonstrates a disregard for his clients and for his duties as an attorney. In order to protect the public and maintain the high standards of the legal profession in this state, respondent must not be allowed the opportunity to return to the practice of law in the future.

Accordingly, we will adopt the board’s recommendation and permanently disbar respondent. We will also order respondent to make restitution to his victims.

DECREE

Upon review of the findings and recommendations of the hearing committee and disciplinary board, and considering the record, it is ordered that the name of Edwin D. Hawkins, Louisiana Bar Roll number 24448, be stricken from the roll of attorneys and that his license to practice law in the State of Louisiana be revoked. Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 24(A), it is further ordered that respondent be permanently prohibited from being readmitted to the practice of law in this Instate. It is further ordered that respondent shall make restitution to his victims. All costs and expenses in the matter are assessed against respondent in accordance with Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 10.1, with legal interest to commence thirty days from the date of finality of this court’s judgment until paid.

       Chief Justice Kimball not participating in the opinion. Johnson, J., dissents. Weimer, J., would grant and docket regarding the penalty-

      . This provision was applicable at the time of respondent's alleged misconduct in the Williams matter. An attorney’s duty to refund unearned fees is now set forth in Rule 1.5(f)(5).

      . We agree with the disciplinary board that our holding in Chatelain, supra, does not apply in the instant case, as the majority of the misconduct currently charged occurred after the misconduct at issue in Hawkins I. Nonetheless, we note the record establishes that the ODC knew of the misconduct forming the basis of six of the seven counts in the instant matter at least seven months before the rendition of our 2008 opinion in Hawkins I. Under these circumstances, it would have been preferable from a judicial efficiency standpoint for the ODC to have called these matters to our attention prior to the rendition of Hawkins I by filing a motion in this court seeking to remand Hawkins I to the board for consolidation with the other pending matters. See, e.g., In re: Barrios, 03-0525 (La.3/28/03), 841 So.2d 772 (explaining that "this court has often remanded cases to the disciplinary board for consolidation with other pending matters and for the issuance of a single report and recommendation.”).

      . In its deemed admitted submission to the hearing committee and its brief to the disciplinary board, the ODC suggested that Guideline 9 (instances of serious attorney misconduct preceded by suspension or disbarment for prior instances of serious attorney misconduct) was applicable. However, as discussed in footnote 2, supra, the majority of the misconduct currently charged actually pre-dated our 2008 opinion in Hawkins I. Therefore, it cannot be said respondent committed new misconduct after being disciplined by this court. Accordingly, we decline to apply Guideline 9.


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: PER CURIAM.

license: Public Domain

text:
    STATE ex rel. Henry JACKSON v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2011-KH-0394.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 25, 2012.
   PER CURIAM.

| Writ granted. Following a rape conviction in which the state’s case rested largely on the victim’s identification and in which relator presented a defense of mis-identification at trial, the lower courts erred when they denied the application for post conviction DNA testing based on the alleged failure of the testing to establish relator’s innocence. La. Code Crim. Proc. art. 926.1(B) and (C). The district court is therefore directed to investigate the availability and integrity of the untested evidence and to order DNA testing in the event that it determines the results could tend to make relator’s guilt more or less probable. La.Code Crim. Proc. art. 926.1(C) and (D). See e.g., State v. Stokes, 10-1387 (La.2/11/11), 56 So.3d 1008.

VICTORY and CLARK, JJ„ would deny.

WEIMER, J., recused.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. James Leonard MOORE.
    No. 2012-K-0102.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 25, 2012.
   PER CURIAM.

11 Granted. The decision of the court of appeal is reversed to the extent that the court, in conducting error patent review of the record, vacated respondent’s habitual offender sentence on grounds that the record failed to reveal affirmatively that the trial court advised respondent of his privilege against self incrimination before accepting his stipulation to the allegations in the habitual offender bill. This Court has “declined to adopt as a constitutional prerequisite to a valid admission of identity at a multiple offender proceeding a procedure analogous to the Boykin colloquy which must accompany a valid plea of guilty.” State v. Harris, 95-0900, p. 1 (La.5/19/95), 654 So.2d 680 (citing State v. Martin, 427 So.2d 1182, 1185, n. 7 (La.1983) (“With deference to courts which have adopted an approach to the admission of identity at a recidivist or habitual offender proceeding which is analogous to that which requires a ‘Boykin’ examination prior to a guilty plea, we simply decline to do so.”) (citations omitted)). We have | ¡.further clarified that even when required, a Boykin colloquy accompanying a guilty plea to a criminal offense is not part of the record for purposes of error patent review, and that a defendant must therefore assign error in the appellate court to preserve review of any alleged defects that may have occurred during the plea proceedings. State v. Guzman, 99-1753, p. 6 (La.5/16/00), 769 So.2d 1158, 1162 (“We find that an error in the plea colloquy required by La.C.Cr.P. art. 556.1 is not an error ‘that is discoverable by a mere inspection of the pleadings and proceedings’ [for purposes of La.C.Cr.P. art. 920(2) ]. Thus, whether a trial court complied with La.C.Cr.P. art. 556.1 is not subject to error patent review but must be designated as an assignment of error on appeal.”); see also State v. Robinson, 06-1406, p. 1 (La.12/8/06), 943 So.2d 371, 372 (“In a case such as this one in which the defendant received a favorable plea bargain and in which the trial court fully conveyed to the defendant that he guilty pleas would fully resolve matters with the state and that no trial would follow, absent a defense assignment of error on the issue, the court’s failure to inform her expressly of the right to a trial by jury is not reviewable on appeal.”).

We therefore agree with the state that a habitual offender hearing should not be considered part of the record for purposes of error patent review and that a defendant must assign as error any perceived defect in the proceedings to preserve appellate review of the claimed error. Accordingly, respondent’s habitual offender adjudication and sentence are reinstated and, as reinstated, his sentence is affirmed.


text:
    In re Mack H. McCRANEY.
    No. 2012-B-0887.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 25, 2012.
   ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS

PER CURIAM.

LThe Office of Disciplinary Counsel (“ODC”) commenced an investigation into allegations that respondent commingled personal funds with client funds in his trust account and issued checks from the account for personal expenses. Prior to the institution of formal charges, respondent and the ODC submitted a joint petition for consent discipline. Having reviewed the petition,

IT IS ORDERED that the Petition for Consent Discipline be accepted and that Mack H. McCraney, Louisiana Bar Roll number 9171, be suspended from the practice of law for a period of six months. This suspension shall be deferred in its entirety, subject to respondent’s successful completion of a two-year period of supervised probation governed by the terms and conditions set forth in the Petition for Consent Discipline. The probationary period shall commence from the date respondent, the probation monitor, and the ODC execute a formal probation plan. Any failure of respondent to comply with the conditions of probation, or any misconduct during the probationary period, may be grounds for making the deferred suspension executory, or imposing additional discipline, as appropriate.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all costs and expenses in the matter are assessed against respondent in accordance with Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 10.1, with legal interest to commence thirty days from the date of finality of this court’s judgment until paid.

       Chief Justice Kimball not participating in the opinion.


text:
    In re Nelvil B. HOLLINGSWORTH.
    No. 2012-B-1151.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 30, 2012.
   ORDER

| r Considering the Joint Petition for Interim Suspension filed by respondent, Nel-vil B. Hollingsworth, and the Office of Disciplinary Counsel,

IT IS ORDERED that Nelvil B. Holl-ingsworth, Louisiana Bar Roll number 20225, be and he hereby is suspended from the practice of law on an interim basis pursuant to Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 19.3, pending further orders of this court. Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 26(E), this order is effective immediately.

FOR THE COURT:

/s/ Greg G. Guidry Justice, Supreme Court of Louisiana


text:
    John JOHNSON, et al. v. ORLEANS PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, et al.
    No. 2012-C-0190.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 31, 2012.
   PER CURIAM.

Lin this application, Republic Insurance Company (“Republic”) seeks review of a judgment of the court of appeal which remanded the case to the district court for a determination of whether Republic’s policy, discussed below, contains an aggregate limit of $1,000,000 for personal injury liability, or no aggregate limit. Upon review, we find the court of appeal erred in finding the policy to be ambiguous and find that the unambiguous language of the policy provides an aggregate limit of $1,000,000.

Effective May 31, 1984, Republic issued a commercial general liability (“CGL”) policy to HANO, containing various coverages, and providing CGL coverage between May 31,1984, and May 31,1985 (the “Policy”). The Policy provides (1) CGL coverage for bodily injury and property damage, and (2) a “Broad Form Comprehensive General Liability Endorsement,” Form No. L 6311, which expanded the policy to afford coverage for “Personal Injury Liability” (“PIL”) claims. The Policy’s bodily injury coverage is “occurrence” based, and states that the “per occurrence” limit is $1,000,000, while the aggregate limit is “nil,” meaning that the maximum amount of coverage available for bodily injury for any one “occurrence” under the CGL coverage is $1,000,000, but there is no limit on the number of occurrences that might trigger coverage.

12This application involves the interpretation of the second part of the policy involving PIL coverage. According to the policy, PIL coverage is “offense” based, and provides PIL coverage for certain enumerated “offenses” committed by HANO during the policy period, and has only an “aggregate” limit. The policy’s declaration page states that the aggregate limit for PIL coverage is governed by the CGL Endorsement Form No. L6311. Form No. L6311 states:

Personal Injury and Advertising Liability
Aggregate Limit shall be the per occurrence bodily injury liability limit unless otherwise indicated herein.
Limit of Liability $ See L639i.a Aggregate

Thus, for the aggregate limit for PIL coverage, the policy states that it is the same as the per occurrence bodily injury liability limit, unless otherwise indicated, and references Form L6394a, the form on which the policy’s per occurrence bodily injury liability limit can be found, and which provides that the per occurrence bodily injury liability limit is $1,000,000. Other parts of the Policy confirm that PIL coverage is subject to limits and does not provide for unlimited coverage. Section 11(A) of the CGL Endorsement provides:

[Republic] will pay on behalf of the insured all sums which the insured shall become legally obliged to pay as damages because of personal injury ... to which this insurance applies ... but [Republic] shall not be obligated to pay any claim or judgment or to defend any suit after the applicable limit of [Repub-lie’s] liability has been exhausted by payment of judgment or settlements.

Section 11(C) of the CGL Endorsement provides:

Regardless of the number of (1) insureds hereunder, (2) persons or organizations who sustain injury or damages, or (3) claims made or suits brought on account of personal injury or advertising injury, the total limit of [Republic’s] liability under this coverage for all damages shall not exceed the limit of liability stated in this endorsement as “aggregate.”

On motion for summary judgment by plaintiffs, the trial court found that the [.limitation on the Policy’s PIL coverage was ambiguous and as such, had to be strictly construed against the insurer to provide unlimited PIL coverage. The court of appeal reversed, agreeing the that coverage was ambiguous, but finding the district court erred in automatically construing the policy against the insurer. Johnson v. Orleans Parish School Board, 10-CA-1388 (La.App. 4 Cir. 12/20/11), 80 So.3d 1175. The court of appeal remanded the case to the district court for a determination of whether the policy had a $1,000,000 PIL aggregate limit or provided unlimited coverage. Id. It is from the court of appeal’s remand ruling that Republic filed this writ application.

“When a contract is not ambiguous or does not lead to absurd consequences ... its interpretation is a question of law for a court to decide.” Am. Deposit Ins. Co. v. Myles, 00-2457 (La.4/25/01), 783 So.2d 1282, 1286. Reading all provisions of the Policy together, we find the Policy unambiguously provides PIL coverage with an aggregate limit of $1,000,000. Further, as we stated in LeBlanc v. Aysenne, 05-297 (La.1/19/06), 921 So.2d 85, 91, “[t]o assume no limit would be imposed on an insurance policy would lead to an absurd and illogical result.” The clear language of the Policy evidences that Republic’s aggregate PIL coverage is the Policy’s per occurrence bodily injury liability limit of $1,000,000. The terms providing for a PIL aggregate of $1,000,000 are supported and clarified by Section 11(A) and (C), which make clear that the PIL endorsement is subject to an aggregate limit. In fact, a federal district court has already ruled in this same case that Republic’s PIL coverage was capped at $1,000,000:

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, in accordance with the Order and Reasons previously entered by the Court on July 23, 2009 (Document # 38), Republic Insurance Company’s motion for summary judgment on the sole issue of whether the personal injury liability coverage under the comprehensive general liability policy issue by Republic to the Housing Authority of New Orleans contains an aggregate limit of $1,000,000 is GRANTED. (Document # 1). There are no disputed issues of material fact, and Republic is entitled to judgment as a matter of law declaring [4that the policy unambiguously sets forth an aggregate limit for personal injury liability claims of $1,000,000 and, therefore, that Republic’s liability for personal injury liability claims is capped at $1,000,000.

Republic Insurance Company v. Housing Authority of New Orleans, No. 08-4748 (E.D.La.7/23/09).

For the above reasons, the writ is granted in part, and the case is remanded to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

WRIT GRANTED IN PART; REMANDED.


text:
    John JOHNSON, et al. v. ORLEANS PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, et al.
    Nos. 2012-CC-0187.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 31, 2012.
   PER CURIAM.

bin these consolidated applications, rela-tors, National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pa., and United States Fire Insurance Company, seek review of a judgment of the district court denying their motions for summary judgment. Re-lators acknowledge they were held jointly and solidarily liable to plaintiffs in then-capacity as insurers of the Housing Authority of New Orleans. Johnson v. Orleans Parish Sch. Bd., 06-1223 (La.App. 4th Cir.1/30/08), 975 So.2d 698, writ denied, 08-0607 (La.6/27/08), 983 So.2d 1289, cert. denied, 555 U.S. 1085, 129 S.Ct. 768, 172 L.Ed.2d 756 (2008). Nonetheless, re-lators assert they are not liable to those plaintiffs whose claims fall outside of then-respective policy periods.

In denying relators’ motions for summary judgment, the district court relied on language from the court of appeal’s 2008 opinion, which provides “[w]e also clarify that HANO’s insurers should have to pay all sums owed by HANO to the class, subject to their right to seek contribution from the other insurers, HANO and the City, for any sums they are obligated to pay for claims that fall outside of their terms of coverage” [emphasis added]. However, relators argue this language is mere dicta, and is at odds with other language in the 2008 opinion providing “[f|or the coverage to apply, all that the policies require is for the ‘invasion of the right of private occupancy’ to take place during the policy period” [emphasis added]. Defendants submit the appellate court’s “clarification” language is mere dicta.

[2We agree. It is well settled in our jurisprudence that an insurer cast in judgment is entitled to rely on its coverage defenses. See Arceneaux v. Amstar Corp., 10-2329 (La.7/1/11), 66 So.3d 438; Norfolk S. Corp. v. California Union Ins. Co., 02-0369 (La.App. 1st Cir.9/12/03), 859 So.2d 167, 198, writ denied, 03-2742 (La.12/19/03), 861 So.2d 579; See also Arias v. Stolthaven New Orleans, L.L.C., 08-1111 (La.5/5/09), 9 So.3d 815 (holding that the Direct Action Statute does not extend the protection of the liability policy to risks which were not covered by the policy or were excluded).

The “clarification” in the court of appeal’s 2008 opinion purporting to impose liability for claims falling outside of rela-tors’ coverage is contrary to this well-settled jurisprudence, and is internally inconsistent with other statements in the opinion. In addition, there is no indication any party to the appeal sought such relief. Under these circumstances, we must conclude the purported “clarification” is merely obiter dicta, which is not binding on the district court.

Accordingly, the writs are granted. The judgment of the district court denying re-lators’ motions for partial summary judgment is vacated and set aside. The case is remanded to the district court, which is instructed to enter partial summary judgment in favor of relators with respect to any claims falling outside of their respective coverages.


text:
    John JOHNSON, et al. v. ORLEANS PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, et al.
    No. 2012-CC-0191.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 31, 2012.
   PER CURIAM.

|TIn these consolidated applications, rela-tors, National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pa., and United States Fire Insurance Company, seek review of a judgment of the district court denying their motions for summary judgment. Re-lators acknowledge they were held jointly and solidarily liable to plaintiffs in their capacity as insurers of the Housing Authority of New Orleans. Johnson v. Orleans Parish Sch. Bd., 06-1223 (La.App. 4th Cir.1/30/08), 975 So.2d 698, writ denied, 08-0607 (La.6/27/08), 983 So.2d 1289, cert. denied, 555 U.S. 1085, 129 S.Ct. 768, 172 L.Ed.2d 756 (2008). Nonetheless, re-lators assert they are not liable to those plaintiffs whose claims fall outside of their respective policy periods.

In denying relators’ motions for summary judgment, the district court relied on language from the court of appeal’s 2008 opinion, which provides “[w]e also clarify that HANO’s insurers should have to pay all sums owed by HANO to the class, subject to their right to seek contribution from the other insurers, HANO and the City, for any sums they are obligated to pay for claims that fall outside of their terms of coverage” [emphasis added]. However, relators argue this language is mere dicta, and is at odds with other language in the 2008 opinion providing “[f]or the coverage to apply, all that the policies require is for the ‘invasion of the right of private occupancy’ to take place during the policy period” [emphasis added]. Defendants submit the appellate court’s “clarification” language is mere dicta.

12We agree. It is well settled in our jurisprudence that an insurer cast in judgment is entitled to rely on its coverage defenses. See Arceneaux v. Amstar Corp., 10-2329 (La.7/1/11), 66 So.3d 438; Norfolk S. Corp. v. California Union Ins. Co., 02-0369 (La.App. 1st Cir.9/12/03), 859 So.2d 167, 198, writ denied, 03-2742 (La.12/19/03), 861 So.2d 579; See also Arias v. Stolthaven New Orleans, L.L.C., 08-1111 (La.5/5/09), 9 So.3d 815 (holding that the Direct Action Statute does not extend the protection of the liability policy to risks which were not covered by the policy or were excluded).

The “clarification” in the court of appeal’s 2008 opinion purporting to impose liability for claims falling outside of rela-tors’ coverage is contrary to this well-settled jurisprudence, and is internally inconsistent with other statements in the opinion. In addition, there is no indication any party to the appeal sought such relief. Under these circumstances, we must conclude the purported “clarification” is merely obiter dicta, which is not binding on the district court.

Accordingly, the writs are granted. The judgment of the district court denying re-lators’ motions for partial summary judgment is vacated and set aside. The case is remanded to the district court, which is instructed to enter partial summary judgment in favor of relators with respect to any claims falling outside of their respective coverages.


text:
    In re J. Renee MARTIN.
    No. 2011-B-2111.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    June 1, 2012.
   PER CURIAM.

| Jn September 2011, the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (“ODC”) filed a petition in this court seeking the immediate interim suspension of respondent, J. Renee Martin, on the ground that she poses a threat of harm to the public. The ODC’s petition was premised on one count of formal charges filed against respondent in January 2011 alleging that she allowed her client’s case to prescribe, and its receipt of other complaints against respondent in which her clients alleged that she failed to communicate with them and neglected their legal matters. The ODC further alleged that respondent failed to cooperate in its investigation of these complaints.

Based upon the information provided by the ODC, on October 14, 2011, this court ordered respondent to show cause before a hearing committee why she should not be placed on interim suspension for threat of harm to the public. Our order further provided, “The hearing shall be conducted on an expedited basis, and within ten days of the date thereof, the hearing committee shall file its report and recommendation in this court.”

The hearing committee conducted a hearing in this matter on November 16, 2011. Thereafter, one of the hearing committee members was removed for cause by the disciplinary board, and a new committee member was appointed. This member reviewed the record of this matter and deliberated with the other members of the committee. On May 10, 2012, the committee submitted its report to this |2court, concluding that respondent hád failed to cooperate with the ODC in some of the matters at issue. The committee made no findings on the merits of the complaints filed against respondent. Based solely upon the failure to cooperate, the committee recommended that respondent be placed on interim suspension.

In response to the committee’s report, respondent filed a motion seeking leave of court to file an objection, which we now grant. Among other arguments raised in this objection, respondent asserts that she is not a threat of harm to the public as a result of her past failure to cooperate.

DISCUSSION

We accept the hearing committee’s factual finding that respondent failed to cooperate with the ODC during its investigation in this matter. However, this finding does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that respondent poses a threat of harm to the public. The ABA’s Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions provides that interim suspension is appropriate when the lawyer’s continuing conduct is causing or is likely to cause serious injury to a client or the public. As examples of serious injury warranting interim suspension, the Commentary to the ABA Standards cites the lawyer’s abandonment of his law practice or the ongoing conversion of trust funds.

The record does not support a finding that respondent’s actions are likely to cause a threat of serious harm to her clients or to the public. Indeed, respondent’s testimony indicates that on several occasions, her failure to appear before the ODC was due to scheduling conflicts resulting from her need to appear in court on behalf of her clients. While respondent could have made a more diligent effort to balance her client’s interests with her duty to cooperate with the ODC, we cannot say her actions were contumacious in nature, nor do they demonstrate a potential Rfor harm to the orderly administration of the disciplinary investigation. Therefore, without passing on whether respondent’s failure to cooperate rises to the level of a disciplinary offense, we conclude it does not constitute grounds for immediate interim suspension.

DECREE

For the reasons assigned, the petition for interim suspension for threat of harm to the public is denied. To the extent that any requests for information from the ODC remain outstanding at this time, respondent is ordered to furnish such information within thirty days.

       Chief Justice Kimball not participating in the opinion.

      . The hearing committee made no factual findings with regard to the substantive allegations of the underlying complaints. We likewise make no findings in this regard.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Peter COLLINS, Jr.
    No. 2012-KK-0417.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    June 1, 2012.
   PER CURIAM.

|T Granted. The trial court erred in granting the defendant’s motion to suppress evidence. The ruling is vacated and this case is remanded to the court for further proceedings consistent with the views expressed herein.

In issuing a warrant, the task of the magistrate “is simply to make a practical, commonsense decision whether, given all the circumstances set forth in the affidavit before him, including the ‘veracity’ and ‘basis of knowledge’ of persons supplying hearsay information, there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place.” Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238-39, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 2332, 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983). The task of a reviewing court “is simply to ensure that the magistrate had a ‘substantial basis for ... concluding]’ that probable cause existed.” Id. (quoting Jones v. United States, 362 U.S. 257, 271, 80 S.Ct. 725, 736, 4 L.Ed.2d 697 (1960)).

|2In the present case, the warrant application did not state that the confidential informant who provided information about drug trafficking from defendant’s residence had a proven track record of past reliability, but police surveillance of the premises and observation of “a fair amount of traffic coming to the residence and leaving after staying a short period of time,” a pattern of activity “consistent with drug trafficking and could be recognized as such by officers well trained in drug trafficking,” State v. Scott, 530 So.2d 630, 633 (La.App. 4th Cir.1988), tended to confirm that the informant was a reliable source of information. See also State v. Bruno, 427 So.2d 1174, 1176-78 (La.1983); State v. Huffman, 419 So.2d 458, 460 (La.1982); State v. Jenkins, 00-0425, p. 10 (La.App. 4th Cir.5/24/00), 764 So.2d 137, 142. Further, although the warrant application did not attach the photograph the informant claimed he took of the marijuana on the premises, the informant clearly intended to impress upon the police that he had come by his information in a reliable way, ie., by direct personal observation.

Given the preference for searches conducted under the authority of a warrant, “marginal cases should be resolved in favor of a finding that the issuing magistrate’s judgment was reasonable.” State v. Rodrigue, 437 So.2d 830, 833 (La.1983) (citing United States v. Ventresca, 380 U.S. 102, 109, 85 S.Ct. 741, 746, 13 L.Ed.2d 684 (1965)). Thus, as a general rule, “an officer cannot be expected to question the magistrate’s probable-cause determination or his judgment that the form of the warrant is technically sufficient.” United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 921, 104 S.Ct. 3405, 3419, 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984). Although sparse, the warrant application in the present case is not so marginal that “a reasonably well trained officer would have known that the search was illegal despite the magistrate’s ^authorization.” Id., 468 U.S. at 922, n. 23, 104 S.Ct. at 3420. The trial court therefore erred in granting the motion to suppress.

RULING VACATED; CASE REMANDED


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Zevi BUSH.
    No. 2012-KK-0720.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    June 1, 2012.
   PER CURIAM.

1 iGranted; stay lifted. The ruling of the trial court granting the motion to suppress and finding no probable cause is reversed and this case is remanded for further proceedings.

Although the narcotics officer did not actually see an object being passed between defendant and - another individual who had just driven into the parking lot where the officer had made numerous drug arrests, under the totality of the circumstances, the officer still held a reasonable belief that a hand-to-hand drug transaction occurred. See State v. Fearheiley, 08-0307, pp. 1-3 (La.4/18/08), 979 So.2d 487, 488-489 (La.2008) (finding sufficient justification for an investigatory stop when “the police officer observed the independent, yet complementary and simultaneous actions by two parties” who displayed “no apparent purpose ... other than facilitating the brief exchange” and the officer drew upon his experience in narcotics investigations, which “had taught him, that in the narcotics trade, ‘when it’s done outside, it’s done very fast from one hand to the next.’ ”).

Because police were justified in stopping the defendant, it was constitutionally permissible for the police to retrieve contraband in plain view, in this case, the “blunt” protruding from the lid of a cup just inside defendant’s vehicle. Police may seize evidence under the “plain view” doctrine when: 1) there is prior justification for police to be at the place where the evidence can be viewed, 12and 2) it is immediately apparent, without close inspection, that the items seized are evidence or contraband. See Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128, 135-136, 110 S.Ct. 2301, 110 L.Ed.2d 112 (1990). Although in the hearing on the motion to suppress the defense labored at length to suggest that the “blunt” containing marijuana may have appeared similar to a cigar containing tobacco, the Supreme Court has rejected “that the officer must be possessed of near certainty as to the seizable nature of the items” and the Court has similarly rejected that the officer must “know” before seizing an item that the item contained contraband. Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S. 730, 741-742, 103 S.Ct. 1535, 75 L.Ed.2d 502 (1983) (plurality opinion). Instead, a seizure is reasonable under the “plain view” doctrine if the officer has probable cause to believe the item seized was associated with criminal activity. Id. at 742, 103 S.Ct. 1535. See also Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321, 107 S.Ct. 1149, 94 L.Ed.2d 347, (1987) (search and seizure of stolen stereo equipment would have been justified under plain view doctrine following police entry into apartment to look for person firing bullet into adjacent apartment, “if [police] had probable cause to believe” — not merely a reasonable suspicion — that the stereo equipment was stolen).

Because the probable cause analysis accounts for the totality of the circumstances, including, here, the narcotics officer’s experience and the furtive movements of defendant as police approached the defendant’s vehicle (see State v. Kirton, 2011-1201 pp. 1-2 (La.6/24/11), 66 So.3d 431, 432 (La.2011)), it was reasonable for police to believe that the “blunt” was associated with the hand-to-hand transaction the narcotics officer witnessed moments before. See Fearheiley, 08-0307, pp. 1-3, 979 So.2d at 488-489. Thus, police acted within constitutional limits in seizing the “blunt” and arresting the defendant for possession of marijuana. The additional drugs found on the defendant’s person were properly seized by police as part of a search incidental to the defendant’s arrest. See State v. Surtain, 2009-1835 pp. 12-13 (La.3/16/10), 31 So.3d 1037, 1046-1047.


text:
    In re Sean A. BLONDELL.
    No. 2009-OB-2608.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    June 13, 2012.
   ORDER

| ¶ Considering the “Termination of Conditional Admission” filed by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel,

IT IS ORDERED that the probationary period imposed by this court in In re: Blondell, 09-2608 (La.12/16/09), 23 So.3d 896, be and hereby is terminated, as the court finds petitioner has made a good faith effort to comply with all terms of probation.

FOR THE COURT:

/s/ John L. Weimer Justice, Supreme Court of Louisiana


text:
    In re Mary C. TAVARY.
    No. 2009-OB-2399.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    June 13, 2012.
   ORDER

It Considering the “Termination of Conditional Admission” filed by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel,

IT IS ORDERED that the probationary period imposed by this court in In re: Tavary, 09-2399 (La.11/18/09), 21 So.3d 932, be and hereby is terminated, as the court finds petitioner has successfully complied with all terms of probation.

FOR THE COURT:

/s/ Marcus R. Clark Justice, Supreme Court of Louisiana


text:
    STATE ex rel. LeAndres BROOKS v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2011-KH-2133.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 25, 2012.
   In re Brooks, LeAndres; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Div. 4, No. 171,400; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 46,-809-KH.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Gregory Jean LOUIS v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2011-KH-2134.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 25, 2012.
   In re Louis, Gregory Jean; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Lafayette, 15th Judicial District Court Div. J, No. 66602; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KH 10-01188.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. John J. CHO v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2011-KH-2135.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 25, 2012.
   In re Cho, John J.; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 00-205; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 09-WR-524.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Ashton CAMPBELL v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2011-KH-2154.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 25, 2012.
   In re Campbell, Ashton; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Charles, 29th Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 06-6998; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 11-KH-725.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Harold JENKINS v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2011-KH-2155.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 25, 2012.
   In re Jenkins, Harold; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. G, No. 456517; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2011 KW 1275.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Myron HODGES v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2011-KH-0622.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 25, 2012.
   In re Hodges, Myron; — Plaintiff; Applying for Reconsideration of this Court’s action dated March 28, 2012, and from Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. A, No. 305-827; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2010-K-1703.

Recpnsideration denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. John Howard SCOTT v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2011-KH-2157.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 25, 2012.
   In re Scott, John Howard; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. N, No. 09-09-0962; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2011 KW 0398.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Michael MEAD v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2011-KH-2162.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 25, 2012.
   In re Mead, Michael; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. C, No. 369-144; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2011-K-1147.

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


text:
    STATE ex rel. Jovan DECAY. v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2011-KH-2163.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 25, 2012.
   In re Decay, Jovan; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. M, No. 05-3111; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 11-KH-724.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Juventino MUNOZ v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2011-KH-2164.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 25, 2012.
   In re Munoz, Juventino; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. M, No. 93-6645; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 11-KH-842.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Edmond D. SPENCER v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2011-KH-2166.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 25, 2012.
   In re Spencer, Edmond D.; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Washington, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 96-CR1-064076; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2011 KW 1410.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Michael JONES v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2011-KH-2167.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 25, 2012.
   In re Jones, Michael; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. J, No. 09-2662; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 11-KH-834.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Courtney BRIMZEY v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2011-KH-2173.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 25, 2012.
   In re Brimzey, Courtney; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Natchitoches, 10th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. C-8376-B; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KH-01123.

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


text:
    STATE ex rel. Louis Tyrone McKEAVER v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2011-KH-2177.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 25, 2012.
   In re McKeaver, Louis Tyrone; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Div. 1, No. 241,075; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 46,-860-KH.

Denied. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.3; State ex rel. Melinie v. State, 93-1380 (La.1/12/96), 665 So.2d 1172. See also State v. Cotton, 09-2397 (La.10/15/10), 45 So.3d 1030; State v. Thomas, 08-2912, (La.10/16/09), 19 So.3d 466.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Carlos DRAYTON v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2011-KH-2178.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 25, 2012.
   IN RE: Drayton, Carlos; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Ouachita, 4th Judicial District Court Div. K, No. 08-F-14754; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 46,940-KH;

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Marcus Wayne HARRIS, Sr. v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2011-KH-2179.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 25, 2012.
   In re Harris Sr., Marcus W.; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Iberville, 18th Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 34-98; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2011 KW1050.

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


text:
    STATE ex rel. Christopher RELIFORD v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2011-KH-2180.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 25, 2012.
   In re Reliford, Christopher; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Natchitoches, 10th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. C-8001-B; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 10 00907-KH.

Denied. La.C.Cr.P. art. 980.8; State ex rel. Glover v. State, 93-2330 (La.9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Miguel ROSALES v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2011-KH-2185.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 25, 2012.
   In re Rosales, Miguel; — Plaintiff; Applying For. Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. M, No. 85-1964; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 08-WR-955.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Ronnie R. MORAN v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2011-KH-2195.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 25, 2012.
   In re Moran, Ronnie R.; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. G, No. 402-657; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2011-K-1012.

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


text:
    STATE ex rel. Kian TATE v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2011-KH-2198.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 25, 2012.
   In re Tate, Kian; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 09-09-0319; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2011 KW 1386.

Denied. Premature.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Mario CHARLES v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2011-KH-2196.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 25, 2012.
   In re Charles, Mario; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Terrebonne, 32nd Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 345943; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2011 KW 1347.

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


text:
    STATE ex rel. Ontario De’Wan SMITH v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2011-KH-2210.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 25, 2012.
   In re Smith, Ontario DeWan; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Lincoln, 3rd Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 42,876; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 46,-875-KH.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Clifton B. AYCHE v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2011-KH-2212.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 25, 2012.
   In re Ayche, Clifton; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. J, No. 04-6318; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 11-KH-817.

Denied. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8; State ex rel. Glover v. State, 93-2330 (La.9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189; see also State ex rel. Hall v. State, 99-0326 (La.9/24/99), 871 So.2d 1071.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Theodore J. PHILLIPS v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2011-KH-2271.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 25, 2012.
   In Re Phillips, Theodore J.; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Mary, 16th Judicial District Court Div. F, No. 121,709; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2011 CA 0202.

Denied; the result is correct.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Donald SIMS v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2011-KH-2272.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 25, 2012.
   In re Sims, Donald; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. F, No. 98-849; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, Nos. 09-WR-831, 09-KH-1119.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Edwin STARK v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2011-KH-2280.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 25, 2012.
   In re Stark, Edwin; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. J, No. 391 — 426; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2011-K-1303.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Dino Jay SCHWERTZ v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2011-KH-2281.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 25, 2012.
   In re Schwertz, Dino Jay; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. I, No. 449563; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2011 KW 1373.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Wilfred GUY v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2011-KH-2289.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 25, 2012.
   In re Guy, Wilfred; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. F, No. 306-419; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2011-K-1248.

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


text:
    STATE ex rel. Steven BUTLER v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2011-KH-2290.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 25, 2012.
   In re Butler, Steven; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Lafourche, 17th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 420729; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2011 KW 1290.

Denied.

WEIMER, J., recused.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Ronald HARRIS v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2011-KH-2294.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 25, 2012.
   In re Harris, Ronald; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. E, Nos. 361-794, 365-980; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2011-K-0720.

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


text:
    STATE ex rel. Stafford BOLDEN v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2011-KH-2299.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 25, 2012.
   In re Bolden, Stafford; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. M, No. 06-766; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 11-KH-750.

Denied. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.3; State ex rel. Melinie v. State, 93-1380 (La.1/12/96), 665 So.2d 1172. See also State v. Cotton, 09-2397 (La.10/15/10), 45 So.3d 1030. State v. Thomas, 08-2912, (La.10/16/09), 19 So.3d 466.


text:
    STATE ex rel. William HAMILTON v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2011-KH-2298.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 25, 2012.
   In re Hamilton, William; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Natchitoches, 10th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 91-5048-A; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KH 10-01170.

Denied. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8; State ex rel. Glover v. State, 93-2330 (La.9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189; State v. Parker, 98-0256 (La.5/8/98), 711 So.2d 694; La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.3; State ex rel. Melinie v. State, 93-1380 (La.1/12/96), 665 So.2d 1172.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Derrick Wayne DOUGLAS v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2011-KH-2307.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 25, 2012.
   In re Douglas, Derrick Wayne; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. L, No. 03-07-0882; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 KA 2039.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Hampton FRANKLIN v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2011-KH-2344.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 25, 2012.
   In re Franklin, Hampton; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. K, No. 462-090; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2011-K-1274.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Jarvis EDWARDS.
    No. 2011-KO-0163.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 25, 2012.
   In re Edwards, Jarvis; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Div. 1, No. 264,319; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 45,842-KA.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Allen L. BELL.
    No. 2012-K-0210.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 25, 2012.
   In re Bell, Allen L.; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Washington, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. G, No. 04 CR8 90706; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2011 KA 0862.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Rhonda L. GOODSON.
    No. 2012-K-0289.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 25, 2012.
   In re Goodson, Rhonda L.; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. J, No. 446598; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2011 KA 0381.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Rigoberto FUNES.
    No. 2012-KO-0290.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 25, 2012.
   In re Funes, Rigoberto; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 08-5641; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 11-KA-120.

Denied.

GUIDRY, J., recused.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Mark OTT.
    No. 2012-KO-0291.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 25, 2012.
   In re Ott, Mark; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. H, No. 482-028; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2010-KA-1307.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Clarion BAY, Jr. v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2011-KH-2161.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 25, 2012.
   In re Bay Jr., Clarion; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Sabine, 11th Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 34-592; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KH-10-01556.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Kevin BESSE.
    No. 2012-KO-0292.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 25, 2012.
   In re Besse, Kevin; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. K, No. 09-4973; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 11-KA-230.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Ronald BUCKLEY.
    No. 2012-KO-0297.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 25, 2012.
   In re Buckley, Ronald; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. J, No. 470-258; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2011-KA-0369.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Patrick MUCKRIDGE.
    No. 2012-K-0327.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 25, 2012.
   In re Muckridge, Patrick; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Calcasieu, Lake Charles City Court, No. 15206-11; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KW 11-01407.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Ivan RAYO.
    No. 2012-KP-0329.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 25, 2012.
   In re Rayo, Ivan; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 10-938; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 11-KH-1062.

Denied.

GUIDRY, J., recused.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Jose C. MENDOZA.
    No. 2012-KP-0330.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 25, 2012.
   In re Mendoza, Jose C.; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 10-938; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 11-KH-1063.

Denied.

GUIDRY, J., recused.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. David PAGE.
    No. 2012-KP-0333.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 25, 2012.
   In re Page, David; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 07-1717; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 11-KH-1094.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Matt BANKS.
    No. 2012-KO-0368.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 25, 2012.
   In re Banks, Matt; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Ouachita, 4th Judicial District Court Div. F, No. 09-F1627; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 46,898-KA.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Peter R. RUBENS.
    No. 2012-K-0374.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 25, 2012.
   In re Rubens, Peter R.; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Div. F, No. 481-108; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2010-KA-1114.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Rodney Wayne MACON.
    No. 2012-KO-0395.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 25, 2012.
   In re Macon, Rodney Wayne; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Div. 2, No. 112,549; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 46,696-KA.

Denied.


text:
    Walter J. ALVERIS, et al. v. SHELL OIL COMPANY.
    No. 2012-CC-0407.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 25, 2012.
   In re Shell Oil Company; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Bernard, 34th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 93-076; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2011-C-1545.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Renil D. ESCOBAR-RIVERA.
    No. 2012-KO-0409.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 25, 2012.
   In re Escobar-Rivera, Renil D.; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 08-5641; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 11-KA-496.

Denied.

GUIDRY, J., recused.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Derrick JONES.
    No. 2012-KP-0433.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 25, 2012.
   In re Jones, Derrick; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. J, No. 334-122; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2011-K-0834.

Denied.


text:
    ARRIGHI CONSTRUCTION, L.L.C. f/k/a Arrighi Simoneaux, L.L.C. v. STATE of Louisiana, DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATION, OFFICE OF FACILITY PLANNING & CONTROL, and Fauntleroy & Latham Architects, a Professional Corporation.
    No. 2012-CC-0711.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 25, 2012.
   In re Fauntleroy & Latham Architects, A Professional Corporation; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 597,708; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2011 CW 1959.

Denied.


text:
    Nathan Madro BANDARIES v. Joanna CASSIDY.
    No. 2012-C-0780.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 25, 2012.
   In re Bandaries, Nathan Madro; — Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Natchitoches, Natchitoches City Court, No. 25,946-10; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 11-1267.

Denied.


text:
    BICKHAM, et al. v. LAMMICO et al.
    No. 2012-C-0782.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 25, 2012.
   In re Bickham, Ella; Bickham, Jerry et al.; — Plaintiff(s); Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. C, No. 04-374; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2011-CA-0900.

Denied.


text:
    Cami LINDGREN, et ux. v. John T. NING, M.D., et al.
    No. 2012-C-0787.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 25, 2012.
   In re Lindgren et ux., Cami; Lindgren, Gordon; — Plaintiff(s); Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Vernon, 30th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 74,568; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 11-1152.

Denied.


text:
    Edward GAFNER v. Shannon GAFNER.
    No. 2012-C-0789.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 25, 2012.
   In re Gafner, Edward; — Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, Family Court, Parish of East Baton Rouge, No. 161034; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2011 CU 1566.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Benjuiel JOHNSON.
    No. 2012-KK-0790.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 25, 2012.
   In re Johnson, Benjuiel; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedíal Writs, Parish of Iberville, 18th Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 78-11D; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2012-KW 0026.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana DEPT. OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT v. Sonya Y. SEAMAN.
    No. 2012-C-0793.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 25, 2012.
   In re Seaman, Sonya Y.; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Natchitoches, 10th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. CS11-34B; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 11-1366.

Denied.


text:
    Francisco GALACIA v. LOUISIANA CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION.
    No. 2012-C-0796.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 25, 2012.
   In re Galacia, Francisco; — Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. C, No. 08-10576; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2011-CA-1125.

Denied.


text:
    OLD REPUBLIC INSURANCE COMPANY and Koch Specialty Plant Services, Inc. v. VALERO REFINING-NEW ORLEANS, LLC and Valero Energy Corporation.
    No. 2012-CC-0800.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 25, 2012.
   In re Koch Specialty Plant Services Inc.; Old Republic Insurance Company et al.;— Plaintiff(s); Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Charles, 19th Judicial District Court Divs. N, C, Nos. 600,651, 73,241; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, Nos. 11-C-1137, 2011 CW 1656.

Denied. Moot. See disposition in 12-CC-0809.


text:
    1026 CONTI CONDOMINIUMS, LLC. v. 1025 BIENVILLE, LLC.
    No. 2012-C-0801.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 25, 2012.
   In re 1026 Conti Condominiums, LLC;— Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. M, No. 2009-13363; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2011-CA-1055.

Denied.


text:
    OLD REPUBLIC INSURANCE COMPANY and Koch Specialty Plant Services, Inc. v. VALERO REFINING-NEW ORLEANS, LLC and Valero Energy Corporation.
    No. 2012-CC-0803.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 25, 2012.
   In re Koch Specialty Plant Services Inc.; Old Republic Insurance Company et al.;— Plamtiff(s); Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Charles, 19th Judicial District Court Divs. N, C, Nos. 600,651, 73,241; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Nos. 2011 CW 1656, 12-C-46.

Denied. Moot. See disposition in 12-CC-0809.


text:
    Gail SAMPSON v. AVOYELLES PARISH SCHOOL BOARD.
    No. 2012-C-0804.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 25, 2012.
   In re Avoyelles Parish School Board;— Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certio-rari and/or Review, Parish of Avoyelles, Office of Workers’ Compensation District 2, No. 10-5140; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 11-1248.

Denied.


text:
    Gail SAMPSON v. AVOYELLES PARISH SCHOOL BOARD.
    No. 2012-C-0805.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 25, 2012.
   In re Sampson, Gail; — Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Avoyelles, Office of Workers’ Compensation District 2, No. 10-05140; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 11-1248.

Denied.


text:
    Michelle Lee Sullivan YOUNG and Kirland Anthony Young, Sr., Husband and Wife, Individually and on Behalf of their minor child, Kirland Anthony Young, Jr. v. STATE of Louisiana, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND DEVELOPMENT and General Motors Corporation.
    No. 2012-CC-0807.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 25, 2012.
   In re State of Louisiana, Department of Transportation and Development; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of East Feliciana, 20th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 34034; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2011 CW 2298.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Benjuiel JOHNSON.
    No. 2012-KK-0808.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 25, 2012.
   In re State of Louisiana; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Iberville, 18th Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 78-11; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2012 KW 0017.

Denied.


text:
    Ruth Mora AVILA v. SANOFI-AVENTIS, U.S.
    No. 2012-C-0813.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 25, 2012.
   In re Avila, Ruth Mora; — Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. M, No. 690-685; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 11-CA-661.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Vincent Mark CASTILLO v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2012-KH-0828.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 25, 2012.
   In re Castillo, Vincent Mark; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Divs. F, 6, Nos. 12-270, 12-344, 10-1277, 10-1601, 12-270, 12-344; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, Nos. 12-K-156, 12-K-179, 12-K-199, 12-K-348.

Denied.


text:
    Lyle GRAY, Sr., George Rush, John Wood, Jr., Melvin McElwee Sr., Henry Hardy, and Mattie Hardy v. ST. MICHAEL BAPTIST CHURCH, INCORPORATED, Leroy Sanders, Sr. and Carolyn Woullard.
    No. 2012-CC-0829.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 25, 2012.
   In re St. Michael Baptist Church, Incorporated; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. P, Nos. 697-650 C/W 698-973 C/W 700-770 C/W 703-158; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 12-C-257.

Denied.


text:
    O’Neil BASTIAN, Jr. v. LOUISIANA BOARD OF PAROLE, Dixon Correctional Institute.
    No. 2012-C-0830.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 25, 2012.
   In re Bastían Jr., O’Neil; — Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 577969; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2011 CA 1480.

Denied.


text:
    Bianca GIOVINGO v. David DUNN, M.D., Browne-McHardy Clinic, and East Jefferson General Hospital.
    No. 2012-C-0831.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 25, 2012.
   In re Giovingo, Bianca; — Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 621-198; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 11-CA-781.

Denied.


text:
    CAROLINA BIOLOGICAL SUPPLY COMPANY v. EAST BATON ROUGE PARISH SCHOOL BOARD & Delta Education, LLC.
    No. 2012-C-0836.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 25, 2012.
   In re Carolina Biological Supply Company; — Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Cer-tiorari and/or Review, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. J, No. 582,957; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2011 CA 0301.

Denied.


text:
    INTERNATIONAL MARINE CARRIERS, INC. and Tammany Holding Corporation v. PEARL RIVER NAVIGATION, INC. and City of New Orleans.
    No. 2012-C-0837.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 25, 2012.
   In re International Marine Carriers, Inc.; Tammany Holding Corporation;— Plaintiff(s); Applying For Writ of Certio-rari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. G, No. 2004-6949; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2011-CA-1258.

Denied.


text:
    Debra L. LEARD v. William F. SCHENKER, Jr.
    No. 2012-CJ-0906.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 25, 2012.
   In re Leard, Debra L.; — Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. F, No. 1995-08881; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2011-CA-1509.

Writ denied. Stay denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Vincent Mark CASTILLO v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2012-KH-0968.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 25, 2012.
   In re Castillo, Vincent Mark; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. F, No. 12-344; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, Nos. 12-K-94,12-K-348.

Denied.


text:
    In re Dorian BAILEY.
    No. 2012-OB-1150.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 30, 2012.
   In re Bailey, Dorian; — Plaintiff; Applying For Permission to take bar Examination.

Denied. See Supreme Court Rule XVII, § 4(C).


text:
    ST. BERNARD PORT, HARBOR & TERMINAL DISTRICT v. VIOLET DOCK PORT, INC., L.L.C.
    No. 2012-CC-1122.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 30, 2012.
   In re Violet Dock Port Inc. L.L.C.;— Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Bernard, 34th Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 116-860; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2012-C-0417.

Stay denied. Writ denied.


text:
    John DOE v. LOUISIANA BOARD OF ETHICS.
    No. 2012-CC-1102.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 30, 2012.
   In re Confidential Party; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. M, No. 713736; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 12-C-419.

Stay recalled; writ application denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Devin DUNBAR.
    No. 2012-KK-1034.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 30, 2012.
   In re Dunbar, Devin; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. G, No. 501-224; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2011-K-1772.

Denied.


text:
    Theresa Schembre HEBERT v. Damon Paul HEBERT.
    No. 2012-CC-1110.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 30, 2012.
   In re Hebert, Damon Paul; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 709-904; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, Nos. 2012-C-263, 2012-C-357.

Denied.


text:
    John JOHNSON, Individually and as a Representative of the Class of those Similarly Situated v. ORLEANS PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, XYZ Insurance Company, City of New Orleans, and ABC Insurance Company.
    No. 2012-C-0195.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 31, 2012.
   In re United States Fire Insurance Company; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. J, No. 1993-14338; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2010-CA-1388.

Denied.


text:
    John JOHNSON, Individually and as a Representative of the Class of those Similarly Situated v. ORLEANS PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, XYZ Insurance Company, City of New Orleans, and ABC Insurance Company.
    No. 2012-C-0236.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 31, 2012.
   In re Johnson, John et al.; — Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. J, No. 1993-14333; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2010-CA-1388.

Denied.


text:
    In re Appeal of the Decision of the DISCIPLINARY BOARD File NO. 27273.
    No. 2012-OB-0869.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    June 1, 2012.
   In re Moss, Glenn; — Plaintiff; Applying For Appeal of the Decision of the Disciplinary Board.

Granted for the sole purpose of remanding this matter to the Office of Disciplinary Counsel, which shall transfer it to the hearing committee for its consideration pursuant to Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 11(B)(3).


text:
    In re Appeal of the Decision of the DISCIPLINARY BOARD NO. 11-PDB-117.
    No. 2012-OB-0859.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    June 1, 2012.
   In re Houston, Rufus; — Plaintiff; Applying For Appeal of the Decision of the Board Office of Disciplinary Board, No. 11-PDB-117.

Leave to appeal denied.


text:
    In re Appeal of the Decision of the DISCIPLINARY BOARD NO. 2011-ADMIN-1147.
    No. 2012-OB-0952.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    June 1, 2012.
   In re Lay, Richard; — Plaintiff; Applying For Appeal of the Decision of the Disciplinary Board No. 2011-ADMIN-1147 Office of Disciplinary Board, No. 2011-ADMIN-1147.

Not considered. See Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 11(A).

WEIMER, J., recused.


text:
    In re Lawrence D. SLEDGE.
    No. 2012-OB-0779.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    June 1, 2012.
   In re Sledge, Lawrence D.; — Plaintiff; Applying For Reinstatement Office of Disciplinary Board, No. 10-DB-059.

Denied.

WEIMER, J., would grant and docket.


text:
    YELLOWBIRD INVESTMENTS, L.L.C. v. Michael BARBER.
    No. 2012-C-0866.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    June 1, 2012.
   In re Yellowbird Investments, LLC;— Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 543,496; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 46,977-CA.

Writ not considered; not timely filed.


text:
    Ann NOLAN v. JEFFERSON PARISH HOSPITAL SERVICE DISTRICT NO. 2, Parish of Jefferson, State of Louisiana, d/b/a East Jefferson General Hospital.
    No. 2012-C-0868.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    June 1, 2012.
   In re Nolan, Ann; — Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 540-773; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. CA 2011-291.

Not considered; not timely filed.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Javar JOHNSON v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2011-KH-1488.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    June 1, 2012.
   In re Johnson, Javar; — Plaintiff; Applying for Reconsideration of this Court’s action dated April 20, 2012, and from Parish of St. John, 40th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 99-31; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 11-KH-141.

Reconsideration denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Talama G. LEWIS v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2011-KH-1689.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    June 1, 2012.
   In re Lewis, Talama G.; — Plaintiff; Applying for Reconsideration of this Court’s action dated April 20, 2012, and from Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 03-3121; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 11-KH-630.

Reconsideration denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Philip DAVIS v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2011-KH-1839.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    June 1, 2012.
   In re Davis, Philip; — Plaintiff; Applying for Reconsideration of this Court’s action dated April 27, 2012, and from Parish of Natchitoches, 10th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. C-7434; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KH 10-00963.

Reconsideration denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Sylvester MEAD v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2011-KH-1840.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    June 1, 2012.
   In re Mead, Sylvester; — Plaintiff; Applying for Reconsideration of this Court’s action dated April 27, 2012, and from Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 211,460; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. KH 46,679-KH.

Reconsideration denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Ronald P. ULFERS v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2011-KH-1998.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    June 1, 2012.
   In re Ulfers, Ronald P.; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 356669; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2011 KW 0776.

Denied.

VICTORY and WEIMER, JJ., would grant to order evidentiary hearing.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Edna GIBSON v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2011-KH-2211.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    June 1, 2012.
   In re Gibson, Edna; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. K, No. 86-2652; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 08-WR-865.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Richard BOLOTTE Jr. v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2011-KH-2213.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    June 1, 2012.
   In re Bolotte Jr., Richard; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedíal Writs, Parish of Lafourche, 17th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 414788; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2011 KW 1253.

Denied.

WEIMER, J., recused.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Christopher E. SANBORN v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2011-KH-2274.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    June 1, 2012.
   In re Sanborn, Christopher E.; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Charles, 29th Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 99-0313; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 11-KH-823.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Thomas LEBEAU v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2011-KH-2277.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    June 1, 2012.
   In re Lebeau, Thomas; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 93-684; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 11-KH-843.

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


text:
    STATE ex rel. Stephen BRADLEY, III v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2011-KH-2278.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    June 1, 2012.
   In re Bradley III, Stephen; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Div. A, Nos. 248,534, 172931; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, Nos. 46,775-KH, 46,566-KH.

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


text:
    STATE ex rel. Earton Lynn SMITH v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2011-KH-2279.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    June 1, 2012.
   In re Smith, Earton Lynn; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Bossier, 26th Judicial District Court Div. F, Nos. 148130, 148131; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 46,790-KH.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Larry D. LEWIS v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2011-KH-2282.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    June 1, 2012.
   In re Lewis, Larry D.; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial Dis-triet Court Div. 5, No. 278579; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 46,-344-KA.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Archie TYNER v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2011-KH-2283.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    June 1, 2012.
   In re Tyner, Archie; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Webster, 26th Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 51565; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 46,-856-KH.

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


text:
    STATE ex rel. James SELDERS v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2011-KH-2286.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    June 1, 2012.
   In re Selders, James; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. H, No. 08-03-0735; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2011 KW 0569.

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


text:
    STATE ex rel. Richard LAY v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2011-KH-2295.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    June 1, 2012.
   In re Lay, Richard; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Washington, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 11-CR5-112033; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2011-KW-1645.

Denied.

WEIMER, J., recused.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Donald R. WOOLEY, Jr. v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2011-KH-2308.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    June 1, 2012.
   In re Wooley Jr., Donald R.; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. A, No. 309-525; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 11-K-1136.

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


text:
    STATE ex rel. Patrick D. ASHLEY v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2011-KH-2310.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    June 1, 2012.
   In re Ashley, Patrick D.; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. B, No. 390-587; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2011-K-1244.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Michael BANFORD v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2011-KH-2312.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    June 1, 2012.
   In re Banford, Michael; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. J, No. 98-6380; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 09-WR-526.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Rhonda K. OLIVER v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2011-KH-2313.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    June 1, 2012.
   In re Oliver, Rhonda K; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. P, No. 01-955; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 11-KH-841.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Troy GORDEN v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2011-KH-2318.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    June 1, 2012.
   In re Gorden, Troy; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Charles, 29th Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 99-347; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 10-KH-894.

Denied.


text:
    David A. WINN v. LOUISIANA PAROLE BOARD.
    No. 2011-CI-2322.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    June 1, 2012.
   In re Winn, David A.; — Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. M, No. 577,029; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2011 CA 0201.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Antonio TALBERT v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2011-KH-2323.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    June 1, 2012.
   In re Talbert, Antonio; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. L, No. 7-00-0532; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2011 KW 1394.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Manuel CHAPA.
    No. 2011-OK-2327.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    June 1, 2012.
   In re Chapa, Manuel; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 349498; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2011 KW 1395.

Denied.


text:
    Glen BURTON v. LOUISIANA STATE PAROLE BOARD, et al.
    No. 2011-CI-2328.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    June 1, 2012.
   In re Burton, Glen; — Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 579,653; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2011 CA 0189.

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


text:
    STATE ex rel. Demetrius BRADLEY v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2011-KH-2329.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    June 1, 2012.
   In re Bradley, Demetrius; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Div. 1, No. 240,612; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, Nos. 46,-946-KH, 46,947-KH.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Carlos Dewayne DRAYTON v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2011-KH-2343.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    June 1, 2012.
   In re Drayton, Carlos Dewayne; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Ouachita, 4th Judicial District Court Div. K, No. 08F1475; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, Nos. 46,191-KA, 46,866-KH.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Darrin ROBINSON v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2011-KH-2345.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    June 1, 2012.
   In re Robinson, Darrin; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. M, No. 329-961; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2011-K-1331.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. George A. PRESTON v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2011-KH-2358.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    June 1, 2012.
   In re Preston, George A.; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. O, No. 06-6508; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 11-KH-879.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Johnny HAMBURG v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2011-KH-2364.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    June 1, 2012.
   In re Hamburg, Johnny; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Ouachita, 4th Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 09-F00032; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 46,-973-KH.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. James Lee WASHINGTON v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2011-KH-2369.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    June 1, 2012.
   In re Washington, James Lee; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of East Feliciana, 20th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 8-92-1100; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2011 KW 1501.

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


text:
    STATE ex rel. Cedric Lynn SIAS v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2011-KH-2371.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    June 1, 2012.
   In re Sias, Cedric Lynn; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Rapides, 9th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 265913; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KH 11-00134.

Denied. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8; State ex rel Glover v. State, 93-2330 (La.9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189; State v. Parker, 98-0256 (La.5/8/98), 711 So.2d 694; La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.3; State ex rel Melinie v. State, 93-1380 (La.1/12/96), 665 So.2d 1172.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Devin HILLIARD v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2011-KH-2372.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    June 1, 2012.
   In re Hilliard, Devin; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. H, No. 378-114; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2011-K-1100.

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