text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Ricardo K. DUKES.
    No. 2011-KO-1368.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 18, 2012.
   In re Dukes, Ricardo K; — Defendant; Applying for Reconsideration of this Court’s Order dated December 16, 2011, Parish of Concordia, 7th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 08-0854; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 10-1455.

Reconsideration Denied.


source: Caselaw Access Project

license: Public Domain

text:
    In re Edward Bissau MENDY.
    No. 2011-B-2275.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 18, 2012.
   In re Mendy, Edward Bissau; — Plaintiff; Applying for Rehearing of this court’s action dated February 17, 2012, Office of Disciplinary Board, No. 09-DB-053 C/W 09-DB-073.

Rehearing denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Gerard HOWARD v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2011-KH-1497.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 18, 2012.
   In re Howard, Gerard; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. G, No. 686-869; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 11-C-524.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Howard JACKSON v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2011-KH-1604.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 18, 2012.
   In re Jackson, Howard; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of W. Baton Rouge, 18th Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 831004; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2011 KW 0035.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Jerome Skee SMITH v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2011-KH-1639.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 18, 2012.
   In re Smith, Jerome Skee; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. C, No. 310-757; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2011-K-0650.

Denied.

JOHNSON, J., would grant and docket.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Alton GAVIN v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2011-KH-1641.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 18, 2012.
   In re Gavin, Alton; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 7-93-0403; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2011 KW 0457.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Kia STEWART.
    No. 2011-K-1718.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 18, 2012.
   In re Stewart, Kia; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. J, No. 464-435; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2010-KA-0298.

Denied.

JOHNSON and GUIDRY, JJ., would grant.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Ricky KING v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2011-KH-1944.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 18, 2012.
   In re King, Ricky; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. H, No. 415-236; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2011-K-1084.

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. Mark MORRIS v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2011-KH-2000.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 18, 2012.
   In re Morris, Mark; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. H, No. 05-98-0059; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2011 KW 1151.

Denied.

WEIMER, J., recused.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Darrin RAIFORD v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2011-KH-2001.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 18, 2012.
   In re Raiford, Darrin; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 06-CR5-95313; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2011 KW 0809.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Clifford DOLEMAN v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2011-KH-2016.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 18, 2012.
   In re Doleman, Clifford; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. B, No. 372-773; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2011-K-1059.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. John Houston COOLEY v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2011-KH-2017.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 18, 2012.
   In re Cooley, John Houston; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. G, No. 358,320; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2011 KW 0824.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Joseph WARD v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2011-KH-2018.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 18, 2012.
   In re Ward, Joseph; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. John, 40th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 93-159; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, Nos. 08-WR-1135,10-KH-463, ll-KH-88.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Lionel TOLBERT v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2011-KH-2019.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 18, 2012.
   In re Tolbert, Lionel; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. L, No. 09-78-0341; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2011 KW 1313.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Mark BALL v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2011-CI-2024.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 18, 2012.
   In re Ball, Mark; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 03-5008; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. ll-KH-740.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Ronnie DAVIS v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2011-KH-2025.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 18, 2012.
   In re Davis, Ronnie; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 95-2188; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 08-WR-1130.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Raymond MOORE v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2011-KH-2026.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 18, 2012.
   In re Moore, Raymond; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of West Feliciana, 20th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 11-WCR-162; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2011 CW 1033.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Gregory Jean LOUIS v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2011-KH-2028.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 18, 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. Eugene WRIGHT v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2011-KH-2034.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 18, 2012.
   In re Wright, Eugene; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Claiborne, 2nd Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 17,360; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 46,-812-KH.

Denied. See State v. Thomas, 07-0634 (La.1/11/08), 972 So.2d 323.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Aaron STEWART v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2011-KH-2035.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 18, 2012.
   In re Stewart, Aaron; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. G, No. 496-417; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2011-K-1087.

Denied. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.3; State ex rel. Melinie v. State, 93-1380 (La.1/12/96), 665 So.2d 1172.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Vernon JONES v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2011-KH-2036.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 18, 2012.
   In re Jones, Vernon; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. M, No. 04-2620; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 11-KH-751.

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. Rhine REYNOLDS v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2011-KH-2051.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 18, 2012.
   In re Reynolds, Rhine; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of W. Baton Rouge, 18th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 07-2482; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. KW-1174.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Franklin Lee GREEN v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2011-KH-2052.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 18, 2012.
   In re Green, Franklin Lee; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Div. 5, No. 116,324; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 46,-797-KH.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Glenn HILL v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2011-KH-2053.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 18, 2012.
   In re Hill, Glenn; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Tangipahoa, 21st Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 502812; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2011 KW 1292.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Charles Oliver BURNS v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2011-KH-2054.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 18, 2012.
   In re Burns, Charles Oliver; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Div. 1, No. 262,422; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 46,-874-KH.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Theodore S. SMITH v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2011-KH-2063.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 18, 2012.
   In re Smith, Theodore S.; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 274151; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2011 KW 1103.

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.

WEIMER, J., recused.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Cardell K. FUSILIER v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2011-KH-2064.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 18, 2012.
   In re Fusilier, Cardell K; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Lafayette, 15th Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 100-348; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KH 11-00741.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Byron GEORGE v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2011-KH-2065.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 18, 2012.
   In re George, Byron; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. O, No. 99-7750; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 09-WR-576.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Joseph E. DICKERSON v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2011-KH-2066.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 18, 2012.
   In re Dickerson, Joseph E.; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. N, No. 96-2035; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, Nos. 08-WR-1131, 09-KH-97.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Jermaine JAMISON v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2011-KH-2069.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 18, 2012.
   In re Jamison, Jermaine; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. K, No. 09-6506; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 11-K-807.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Jose Lima CASTRO v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2011-KH-2072.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 18, 2012.
   In re Castro, Jose Lima; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. P, No. 05-4125; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 11-KH-793.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Linn RUFFIN v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2011-KH-2085.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 18, 2012.
   In re Ruffin, Linn; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Tangipahoa, 21st Judicial District Court Div. H, No. 802,144; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2011 KW 0900.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Ronald Lee WASHINGTON v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2011-KH-2086.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 18, 2012.
   In re Washington, Ronald Lee; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Div. F, No. 237,561; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 46,-659-KH.

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


text:
    STATE ex rel. Gerard McGEE v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2011-KH-2090.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 18, 2012.
   In re McGee, Gerard; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. F, No. 458-086; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2011-K-1140.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Stephen WINDSOR v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2011-KH-2097.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 18, 2012.
   In re Windsor, Stephen; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. I, No. 389-171; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2011-K-1198.

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


text:
    STATE ex rel. Tarome HARRIS v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2011-KH-2103.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 18, 2012.
   In re Harris, Taróme; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Webster, 26th Judicial District Court Div. A, Nos. 73934, 74452; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 46,774-KH.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Michael W. LEWIS v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2011-KH-2105.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 18, 2012.
   In re Lewis, Michael W.; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Mary, 16th Judicial District Court Div. F, No. 03-162263; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2011 KW1432.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Noel DEAN v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2011-KH-2106.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 18, 2012.
   In re Dean, Noel; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. K, No. 403-447; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2011-K-1245.

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


text:
    STATE ex rel. Theodore ARITA v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2011-KH-2107.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 18, 2012.
   In re Arita, Theodore; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. K, No. 01-5209; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 11-KH-690.

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. Michael Scott CROSBY v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2011-KH-2108.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 18, 2012.
   In re Crosby, Michael Scott; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Div. 3, No. 254480; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 46,-819-KH.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Shannon Lamar DENNIS.
    No. 2011-KO-2365.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 18, 2012.
   In re Dennis, Shannon Lamar; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Div. 2, No. 273,475; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 46,471-KA.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana, v. Troy ALEMAN.
    No. 2011-KP-2510.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 18, 2012.
   In re Aleman, Troy; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 95-6019; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 08-WR-872. •

Denied.

GUIDRY, J., recused.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Yultton MENDOZA.
    No. 2011-KP-2550.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 18, 2012.
   In re Mendoza, Yultton; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, .Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 457455; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2011 KW 1599.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Ulysses COOKS.
    No. 2012-K-0112.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 18, 2012.
   In re State of Louisiana; — Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or’.Review, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. H, No. 486-802; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2011-KA-0342.

Denied.

VICTORY and GUIDRY, JJ., would grant.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Anthony MANZELLA.
    No. 2012-K-0194.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 18, 2012.
   In re Manzella, Anthony; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of East Feliciana, 20th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 2010-CR-000660; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2011 KA 0984.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Jerry BICKHAM, Jr.
    No. 2012-K-0208.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 18, 2012.
   In re Bickham Jr., Jerry; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. F, No. 194725; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2011 KA 1000.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Kevin SMITH.
    No. 2012-K-0214.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 18, 2012.
   In re Smith, Kevin; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of-Terrebonne, 32nd Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 522,244; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2011 KA 0742.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Warren Todd GORDON.
    No. 2012-KO-0219.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 18, 2012.
   In re Gordon, Warren Todd; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 494535-1; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2011 KA 0810.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Christopher MARLOWE.
    No. 2012-K-0231.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 18, 2012.
   In re Marlowe, Christopher; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. G, No. 467-635; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2010-KA-1116.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Hannah V. SALSBURY.
    No. 2012-K-0234.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 18, 2012.
   In re Salsbury, Hannah V.; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. G, No. 492311; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2011 KA 1171.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Corey MILLER, aka C-Murder.
    No. 2012-K-0282.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 18, 2012.
   In re Corey Miller A/K/A C-Murder;— Defendant; Applying For Writ , of Certio-rari and/or Review, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. N, No. 02-404; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 10-KA-718.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Steven HOLDEN.
    No. 2012-KO-0283.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 18, 2012.
   In re Holden, Steven; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. I, No. 09-5901; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 11-KA-497.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Hung V. NGUYEN.
    No. 2012-KO-0287.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 18, 2012.
   In re Nguyen, Hung V.; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. N, No. 09-5394; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 11-KA-229.

Denied.


text:
    Lovenda Janice Allen SONNIER v. Andrea Sonnier CONNER, Thomas Sonnier and Diamond McCattle Company, LLC.
    No. 2012-C-0530.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 18, 2012.
   In re Conner, Andrea Sonnier et al.; Diamond McCattle Company, LLC; Son-nier, Thomas; — Defendant(s); Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Jackson, 2nd Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 30,726; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 46,857-CA.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Matamad A. RABEE.
    No. 2012-KK-0676.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 18, 2012.
   In re Rabee, Matamad A.; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. F, No. 503357; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2011 KW 1799.

Denied.


text:
    Jeannie REDMANN v. BRIDGEFIELD CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY and Martin’s Wine Cellar.
    No. 2012-C-0710.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 18, 2012.
   In re Bridgefield Casualty Insurance Company et al.; Martin’s Wine Cellar;— Defendant(s); Applying For Writ of Cer-tiorari and/or Review Office of Workers’ Compensation District 7, No. 09-09604; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 11-CA-651.

Denied.


text:
    Arthur DEPODESTA v. Dail BREAUX, et al.
    No. 2012-CC-0721.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 18, 2012.
   In re Breaux, Dail; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. I, No. 2010-1564; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2012-C-0297.

Denied.


text:
    FIRST NBC BANK v. Albert J. DERBES, IV.
    No. 2012-CC-0722.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 18, 2012.
   In re Derbes IV, Albert J.; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. N, No. 2011^4178; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2011-C-1739.

Denied.


text:
    SOUTHWEST MISSISSIPPI ANESTHESIA, P.A., INC. d/b/a “The Feldman Institute”TM and Dr. Arnold E. Feldman. v. FRILOT, L.L.C. and Joel E. Cape.
    No. 2012-CC-0726.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 18, 2012.
   In re Cape, Joel E.; Frilot, L.L.C.;— Defendant(s); Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 594,315; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2011 CW1976.

Denied.


text:
    MAPP CONSTRUCTION, LLC; Bituminous Casualty Corp. v. AMERISURE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Crum & Forster Specialty Insurance Company, the Gray Insurance Company, Northern Insurance Company of NY, Zurich American Insurance Company, Transportation Insurance Company, Valley Forge Insurance Company, et al.
    No. 2012-CC-0727.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 18, 2012.
   In re Crum & Forster Specialty Insurance Company; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 584-205; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2011 CW 2050.

Denied.


text:
    Vernon D. ADAMS and Glenda P. Adams v. JPD ENERGY, INC.
    No. 2012-C-0728.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 18, 2012.
   In re Adams, Glenda P.; Dan R. Adams, Executor of the Succession of Vernon D. Adams; Vernon D. Adams, et al.; — Plaintiffs); Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Div. 1, No. 521579; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 46,869-CA.

Denied.


text:
    Joe ARCENEAUX, Tami Arceneaux, Patricia Arceneaux, Shannon Arceneaux, Justin Bowman, Terry Bowman, Ronald Chambers, Janice Lansing and Robert Meadors v. CITY OF DENHAM SPRINGS, Pilot Club of Denham Springs, Inc. and Pilot Club of Denham Springs Louisiana Foundation, Inc.
    No. 2012-CC-0729.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 18, 2012.
   In re Arceneaux, Joe et al.; Arceneaux, Patricia; Arceneaux, Shannon; Arceneaux, Tami; Bowman, Justin; Bowman, Terry; Chairibers, Ronald; Lansing, Janice; Meadors, Robert; — Plaintiffs); Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Livingston, 21st Judicial District Court Div. G, No. 133931; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2011 CW 1901.

Denied.


text:
    DISCOVER BANK v. Andrea NELSON.
    No. 2012-C-0730.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 18, 2012.
   In re Nelson, Andrea; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, New Orleans First City Court, No. 2010-51331; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2011-CA-1284.

Denied.


text:
    Frank BATISTE and Lavinzale Batiste v. CITY OF NEW ORLEANS; SMG Crystal, LLC; & Orleans Parish School Board.
    No. 2012-C-0735.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 18, 2012.
   In re United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. I, No. 2003-08461; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2011-CA-1168.

Denied.


text:
    Dawn Cheryl PEREZ v. Oscar G. PEREZ.
    No. 2012-CJ-0743.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 18, 2012.
   In re Perez, Dawn Cheryl; — Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of ■ Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Vernon, 30th Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 76,796; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 11-537.

Denied.


text:
    HTC, INC. and Gerald Carter v. ARCHANGEL ARMOR, L.L.C. and Paul Carter, Individually and as Manager of Archangel Armor, L.L.C.
    No. 2012-CC-0745.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 18, 2012.
   In re Archangel Armor, L.L.C.; Carter, Paul; — Defendant(s); Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Ouachita, 4th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 09-3451; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 47,277-CW.

Denied.


text:
    Brandt M. D’ANGELO v. Mandy GUARINO Wife of/and Eugenio Guarino, State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, Terry Tedesco, Inc., and XYZ Insurance Company.
    No. 2012-C-0746.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 18, 2012.
   In re D’Angelo, Brandy M.; — Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of St. Bernard, 34th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 104-858; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2010-CA-1555.

Denied.


text:
    Louis JONES, Jr., et al. v. CITY OF NEW ORLEANS, et al.
    No. 2012-CC-0748.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 18, 2012.
   In re Barden, Joann; Castle III, Sam E.; Estate of Jennie Venturella; Haynes, Ralph; Jones Jr., Louis et al.; — Plaintiffs); Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. G, No. 12-00201; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2012-C-0272.

Denied.


text:
    INTERSTATE REALTY MANAGEMENT COMPANY v. Ora PRICE, Darryl Price & Leonard Price.
    No. 2012-C-0762.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 18, 2012.
   In re Ora Price, et al.; Price, Darryl; Price, Leonard; — Defendant(s); Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, New Orleans First City Court, No. 11-1186; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2011-CA-1131.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Victor AYALA.
    No. 2012-KK-0765.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 18, 2012.
   In re Ayala, Victor; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, Div. C, No. 98-830; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit; No. ll-KH-1109.

Denied.


text:
    Adrienne STERMER v. ARCHER-DANIELS-MIDLAND COMPANY, et al.
    No. 2012-CC-0766.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 18, 2012.
   In re Agrinational Insurance Company; American River Transportation Company; Archer-Daniels-Midland Company et al.; — Defendant(s); Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Landry, 27th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 08-C-6424-B; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CW 11-01301.

Denied.

VICTORY, J., would grant.


text:
    John Lee TALBERT, Jr. and Cynthia Talbert v. Henry M. EVANS, Jr., M.D. and Louisiana Avenue Medical Center, Inc., a Medical Corporation.
    No. 2012-C-0774.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 18, 2012.
   In re Louisiana Patient’s Compensation Fund Oversight Board; — Other; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. I, No. 2007-7556; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2011-CA-1096.

Denied.

VICTORY, J., would grant.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Alphonso Bernard WILLIAMS.
    No. 2012-KK-0776.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 18, 2012.
   In re Williams, Alphonso Bernard; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Caddo, Div. B, No. 281,292; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 47,318-KW.

Denied.


text:
    Lisa S. KIRSCHMAN v. Arnold L. KIRSCHMAN.
    No. 2012-CC-0778.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 18, 2012.
   In re Singer, Lisa; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. J, No. 2006-6464; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2012-C-0210.

Denied.


text:
    M & R DRYWALL, INC. v. MAPP CONSTRUCTION, L.L.C. Southgate Towers, L.L.C. and R.W. Day and Associates, Inc. Southgate Residential Towers, LLC, Southgate Penthouses, LLC v. Mapp Construction, Inc., et al.
    No. 2012-CC-0792.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 18, 2012.
   In re Southgate Penthouses, LLC; Southgate Residential Towers, LLC;— Plaintiff(s); Applying For Supervisory and/of Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. O, No. 529,351 C/W 550,534; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2011 CW 2188.

Denied.


text:
    OPELOUSAS TRUST AUTHORITY d/b/a Opelousas General Health System, et al. v. CLECO CORPORATION and Cleco Power, LLC. Deborah Mayo, et al. v. Cleco Corporation and Cleco Power, LLC.
    No. 2012-CC-0623.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 18, 2012.
   In re Cleco Corporation et al.; Cleco Power, LLC; — Defendant(s); Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Landry, 27th Judicial District Court Div. D, Nos. 10-C-2379, 10-C-1179; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Nos. 11-348,11-391,11-349,11-392.

Granted.


text:
    OPELOUSAS TRUST AUTHORITY d/b/a Opelousas General Health System, et al. v. CLECO CORPORATION and Cleco Power, LLC. Deborah Mayo, et al. v. Cleco Corporation and Cleco Power, LLC.
    No. 2012-CC-0636.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 18, 2012.
   In re Louisiana Public Service Commission; — Other; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Landry, 27th Judicial District Court Div. D, Nos. 10-C-1179, 10-C-2379; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Nos. 11-348, 11-392,11-349,11-391.

Granted.


text:
    Kim BATES and Clyde Michael Bates v. LOUISIANA NATIONAL GUARD ARMORY and State of Louisiana Military Department.
    No. 2012-C-0459.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 18, 2012.
   In re Louisiana National Guard Armory, et al.; State of Louisiana Military Department; — Defendant(s); Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Ouachita, 4th Judicial District Court Div. H, No. 04-3431; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 46,892-CA.

Granted. The ruling of the trial court granting summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs on the issue of liability is hereby reversed. We find the defendants met their burden of showing there exists a genuine issue of material fact.

JOHNSON, WEIMER and CLARK, JJ., would deny.


text:
    OPELOUSAS TRUST AUTHORITY d/b/a Opelousas General Health System, et al. v. CLECO CORPORATION and Cleco Power, LLC. Deborah Mayo, et al. v. Cleco Corporation and Cleco Power, LLC.
    No. 2012-CC-0622.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 18, 2012.
   In re Cleco Corporation et al.; Cleco Power, LLC; — Defendant(s); Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Landry, 27th Judicial District Court Div. D, Nos. 10-C-1179, 10-C-2379; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Nos. 11-348,11-392,11-349,11-391.

Granted.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Jerome BRYANT, Jr.
    No. 2012-K-0233.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 18, 2012.
   In re State of Louisiana; — Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Div. 2, No. 289-863; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, Nos. 46,745-KA, 46,744-KA.

Granted.


text:
    Wesley C. JOHNSON v. Richard BELL, CTJ Services, Incorporated and Crum & Forster Insurance Company.
    No. 2012-C-0600.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 18, 2012.
   In re United States Fire Insurance Company; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. H, No. 2006-2284; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2011-CA-1348.

Writ Granted. While dismissal is a draconian penalty which should only be applied in extreme cases, Horton v. McCary, 93-2315, p. 10 (La.4/11/94), 635 So.2d 199, 203, it does not appear that the district court abused its discretion in ordering dismissal under the facts of the present case. There is sufficient evidence to support the conclusion that plaintiffs failure to comply with discovery was willful and warranted the harsh remedy imposed by the district court. See Hutchinson v. Westport Ins. Corp., 04-1592 (La.11/8/04), 886 So.2d 438. The Judgment of the court of appeal is reversed and the district court order of dismissal is reinstated.


text:
    In re JUDICIARY COMMISSION NO. 0305.
    No. 2012-O-1107.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 18, 2012.
   In re Confidential Party; — Other; Applying For Writ of Mandamus and/or Writ of Prohibition Judiciary Commission of Louisiana, No. 0305.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana in the Interest of R.S.
    No. 2012-CK-0141.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 18, 2012.
   In re S., R.; — Other; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Orleans Parish Juvenile Court, No. 2011-262-03 DQ E; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2011-C-1715.

Denied.


text:
    Gary COSTANZA, et ux. v. SNAP-ON TOOLS COMPANY, et al.
    No. 2012-CC-1098.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 21, 2012.
   In re Elder, Martin; Snap-On Tools Company et al.; — Defendant(s); Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Tangipahoa, 21st Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 94-00040; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2012 CW 0632.

Stay denied. Writ denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Frederick JOSEPH, Jr.
    No. 2012-KK-1153.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 24, 2012.
   In Re Joseph Jr., Frederick; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Iberia, 16th Judicial District Court Div. H, No. 11-0101; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KW 12-00425.

Stay denied. Writ denied.


text:
    Gloria TURNER v. WILLIS KNIGHTON MEDICAL CENTER, Venkateswara Rao, M.D., Navadeep Samra, M.D. and Gazi Zibari, M.D.
    No. 2012-C-0742.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 25, 2012.
   In re Rao, M.D., Venkateswara; Samra, M.D., Navadeep; State of Louisiana; Zi-bari, M.D., Gazi; — Defendant(s); Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 546,189; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 49,988-CA.

Granted.


text:
    OLD REPUBLIC INSURANCE COMPANY and Koch Specialty Plant Services, Inc. v. VALERO REFINING-NEW ORLEANS, LLC and Valero Energy Corporation.
    No. 2012-CC-0809.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 25, 2012.
   In re Valero Refining-New Orleans LLC et ah; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Divs. M, C, Nos. 600,651, 73,241; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, Nos. 12-C-46, 2011 CW 1656.

Granted. Considering the unique circumstances of this case, the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting relators’ motion to transfer based on forum non conveniens. Accordingly, the judgment of the court of appeal is reversed, and the judgment of the district court transferring the case to the 29th Judicial District Court for the Parish of St. Charles is reinstated.


text:
    Keith JOHNSON v. Regina TREGRE and Allstate Insurance Company and XYZ Insurance Company.
    No. 2012-C-0833.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 25, 2012.
   In re Johnson, Keith; — Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 656-161; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. ll-CA-782.

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


text:
    In re Kimuel Wayne LEE.
    No. 2011-B-2530.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 25, 2012.
   In re Lee, Kimuel Wayne; — Plaintiff; Applying for Rehearing of this Court’s order dated April 13, 2012; Office of Disciplinary Board No. 09-DB-047.

Rehearing denied.


text:
    In re Marcia Denise JORDAN.
    No. 2012-OB-551.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 25, 2012.
   In re Jordan, Marcia Denise; — Plaintiff; Applying for Rehearing of this Court’s Order dated April 9, 2012.

Rehearing denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Dannon SELLERS v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2011-KH-1673.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 25, 2012.
   In re Sellers, Dannon; — Plaintiff; Applying for Reconsideration of this Court’s action dated April 20, 2012, and from Parish of St. Martin, 16th Judicial District Court Div. G, No. 08-234,909; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KH 10-00853.

Reconsideration denied.


text:
    Theresia DICKERSON v. Farhad Xerxes ADULI.
    No. 2012-CC-0909.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 25, 2012.
   In re Dickerson, Theresia; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. L, No. 99-13466; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2012 CW 0458.

Stay denied. Writ denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. John K. RICHARD v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2011-KH-1869.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 25, 2012.
   In re Richard, John K.; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. H, No. 86-3725; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 08-WR-985.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Franklin C. REDFERN v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2011-KH-1981.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 25, 2012.
   In re Redfern, Franklin C.; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Ouachita, 4th Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 07-F2107; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 46,876-KH.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Glenn HILL v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2011-KH-2070.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 25, 2012.
   In re Hill, Glenn; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Tangipahoa, 21st Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 502812; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2011 KW 1062.

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. Roger D. WHITE, Jr., v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2011-KH-2084.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 25, 2012.
   In re White Jr., Roger D.; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Avoyelles, 12th Judicial District Court Div. A, Nos. 83,210, 83,211, 85,000; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Nos. KH 11-00080,10-1367.

Denied.

KNOLL, J., recused.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Willard BRANDENBURG v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2011-KH-2095.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 25, 2012.
   In re Brandenburg, Willard; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson Davis, 31st Judicial District Court Div. O, No. CR-969-04; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KH 10-01235.

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


text:
    STATE ex rel. Roderick L. MOORE v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2011-KH-2101.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 25, 2012.
   In re Moore, Roderick L.; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Div. 5, No. 263713; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 46,-804-KH.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Clinton SAM v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2011-KH-2102.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 25, 2012.
   In re Sam, Clinton; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. P, No. 03-3995; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. ll-KH-805.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Ricky CARTHAN v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2011-KH-2115.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 25, 2012.
   In re Carthan, Ricky; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Beauregard, 36th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. CR 196-98; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KH 10-01201.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Phillip A. WATTS v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2011-KH-2116.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 25, 2012.
   In re Watts, Phillip A.; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. J, No. 388502; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Nos. 2011-KW-1334, 2011-KW-1335.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Rusty LOVEJOY v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2011-KH-2119.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 25, 2012.
   In re Lovejoy, Rusty; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Allen, 33rd Judicial District Court Div. A, No. CR01-5494; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KH 10-01051.

Denied.


text:
    Gloria TURNER v. WILLIS KNIGHTON MEDICAL CENTER, Venkateswara Rao, M.D., Navadeep Samra, M.D. and Gazi Zibari, M.D.
    No. 2012-C-0703.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 28, 2012.
   In re Willis Knighton Medical Center;— Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certio-rari and/or Review, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Div. 1, No. 546,189; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 46,988-CA.

Granted.


author: TERRI F. LOVE, Judge.

text:
    KEYCLICK OUTSOURCING, INC. v. OCHSNER HEALTH PLAN, INC.
    No. 2011-CA-0598.
    Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.
    March 14, 2012.

      J. Alex Watkins, T. Carey Wicker III, Capitelli & Wicker, New Orleans, LA, for Plaintiff/Appellant.
    Donald J. Miester, Jr., Perry R. Staub, Jr., Taggart Morton, L.L.C., New Orleans, LA, for Defendant/Appellee.
    (Court composed of Judge JAMES F. McKAY, III, Judge TERRI F. LOVE, and Judge JOY COSSICH LOBRANO).
   TERRI F. LOVE, Judge.

| tThis matter arises following an arbitration proceeding. The arbitrator granted awards to both parties with a net amount being awarded to KeyClick and concluded an expanded scope of judicial review, that neither party was entitled to attorney’s fees or costs. KeyClick moved to vacate the award, and the trial court judge found that the parties had no authority to contractually expand the scope of judicial review. KeyClick filed a motion for new trial, which the trial court denied, and this appeal followed.

We find that the decision to vacate the 2003 arbitration award was not based on Further, KeyClick’s request to reinstate the 2008 arbitration award is not properly before this Court. We also find that the law of the case doctrine is inapplicable in that it would be contrary to intervening caselaw. Further, we find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s confirmation of the assessment of attorneys’ fees made by the arbitrator and affirm.

| ¡¿PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

This arbitration proceeding resulted from a breach of contract action regarding pricing between KeyClick Outsourcing, Inc. (“KeyClick”) and Ochsner Health Plan (hereinafter “OHP”). In 2002, Key-Click invoked a clause in the contract between the parties (hereinafter “the agreement”) that required arbitration, and OHP challenged the arbitration by filing a petition for declaratory and injunctive relief to stop the arbitration, wherein OHP asserted that KeyClick was not a party to the contract because the original party, AMS, changed its name to KeyClick during the pendency of the contract. The 24th Judicial District Court, Parish of Jefferson denied the petition and OHP appealed. The Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, State of Louisiana affirmed the decision of the trial court and the Louisiana Supreme Court denied writ. Ochsner Health Plan, Inc. v. Advanced Medical Systems, Inc., 03-118 (La.App. 5 Cir. 5/28/03), 846 So.2d 1286, writ denied, 03-2035 (La.11/7/03), 857 So.2d 495.

While that appeal was pending, the arbitration proceeded, and the arbitrator issued a ruling after the trial court rendered its decision but prior to the appellate court’s affirmation of the decision. The arbitrator found that no agreement existed between OHP and KeyClick and determined that a net amount of $58,907.45 was owed to KeyClick by OHP.

l3KeyClick sought to have the trial court in Jefferson Parish vacate, modify or correct the arbitrator’s ruling; OHP also sought modification of the award. The trial court conducted a hearing and determined that the arbitrator was operating under a mistake of law given that the appellate court subsequently affirmed the trial court’s determination that there was a contract between KeyClick and OHP but the arbitrator found that no agreement existed between OHP and KeyClick. The trial court determined that the appropriate disposition was to vacate the arbitrator’s ruling and remand the matter for a new arbitration proceeding in light of the court’s ruling on the existence of a contract between KeyClick and OHP. The trial court judge stated, “I think he made a material mistake of law ... the Fifth Circuit stated it was a contract. He didn’t enforce the agreement, because he didn’t find that you were contracting parties.” KeyClick Outsourcing, Inc. v. Ochsner Health Plan, Inc., 06-359, p. 5 (La.App. 5 Cir. 10/31/06), 946 So.2d 174,176.

Thereafter, OHP filed a motion for new trial and argued therein that the trial court should have limited the hearing to the scope of its review rather than addressing the merits of KeyClick’s appeal. The trial court denied the motion for new trial, and OHP appealed. On appeal, OHP argued that the only grounds for vacating an arbitration decision should be those established by statute, which does not include material errors of law as a basis.

The Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, State of Louisiana affirmed that decision finding that the law between the parties included the contract’s expanded scope of review. The Court found authority for the trial court’s direction of a rehearing by |4the arbitrators and determined that pursuant to La. R.S. 9:4210(D), a court may issue an order vacating an arbitration award where the arbitrator exceeded its powers. The Court stated that the agreement that provides for arbitration is the source of the arbitrator’s powers and, as found by the trial court judge, the arbitrator’ had no authority to make “material errors of law” or to “refuse to enforce any agreements between the parties.”

The second arbitration concluded in 2010 and was conducted in two phases — a liability/contractual interpretation phase and a second phase to determine damages. The arbitrator granted awards to both parties with a net amount being awarded to Key-Click in the amount of $9,887.46. The arbitrator concluded that neither OHP nor KeyClick were entitled to attorney’s fees or costs.

KeyClick moved to have the trial court in Orleans Parish vacate the award based on material errors of law. The trial court judge found that a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision forbid the parties from contractually expanding the scope of judicial review under the Federal Arbitration Act. Thus, even if the arbitrator made material errors of law, the trial court judge found that it was not a basis for vacating the award.

On a motion for new trial, KeyClick argued that the law of the case doctrine applied to the question of the contractual basis for the scope of an appeal. Key-Click’s motion was denied. This appeal followed.

| ^STANDARD OF REVIEW

Arbitration is a substitute for litigation. Montelepre v. Waring Architects, 2000-0671, 2000-0672, p. 3 (La.App. 4 Cir. 5/16/01), 787 So.2d 1127,1130. (Other citations omitted.). Arbitration is utilized as a fast and inexpensive mechanism for the settlement of differences. Id.

The positive law of Louisiana favors arbitration, and any doubt concerning the scope of arbitrable issues should be resolved in favor of arbitration. Aguillard v. Auction Mgmt. Corp., 04-2804, 04-2857, p. 6 (La.6/29/05), 908 So.2d 1, 7. In Collins v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America, 99-1423, p. 6 (La.1/19/00), 752 So.2d 825, the Louisiana Supreme Court explained the review of interlocutory judgments as they pertain to arbitration orders and noted that although an interlocutory judgment ordering arbitration is not subject to an immediate appeal, an aggrieved party under these circumstances is not entirely barred from relief. “In a ease where the trial judge has committed a clear error in ordering arbitration, supervisory relief might be appropriate based upon the facts and circumstances of a particular ease.” Collins, 99-1423, p. 9, 752 So.2d at 831. The Court concluded, however, that “in keeping with our policy favoring arbitration, such relief should be granted only sparingly.” Id.

REINSTATEMENT OF ARBITRATION AWARD

KeyClick argues that the interlocutory decision vacating the first arbitration award was in error. KeyClick maintains that the decision vacating the award was based on the parties’ contractual expansion of the scope of | (judicial review. KeyClick contends that the 2003 arbitration award that it previously moved to vacate should be reinstated.

KeyClick did not advance this reinstatement argument in the trial court. Under Rule 1-3 of the Uniform Rules, Courts of Appeal, we cannot consider an argument not raised in the trial court “unless the interest of justice clearly requires otherwise.” We find that the issue is not properly before this Court nor would the interests of justice be served by our consideration of this argument for the first time on appeal.

LAW OF THE CASE

As a result of a second arbitration that was conducted in New Orleans, an arbitrator rendered a net award in favor of KeyClick. The arbitrator also decided that neither party was entitled to attorney’s fees or costs, and KeyClick moved to vacate that arbitration award and OHP filed a motion to confirm the award, or in the alternative, a motion to vacate the arbitration award.

The trial court judge denied KeyClick’s motion to vacate and granted OHP’s motion to confirm the arbitration award. In denying KeyClick’s motion to vacate, the trial court judge relied on Hall Street Associates, L.L.C. v. Mattel, Inc. 552 U.S. 576, 128 S.Ct. 1396, 1404-1405, 170 L.Ed.2d 254 (2008), and limited her review to the enumerated criteria for modifying and/or vacating the award. KeyClick filed a motion for new trial and argued therein that trial court’s finding was contrary to the law in that the law of the case doctrine obliges the trial court to follow an appellate court’s decision in the same case.

KeyClick argues that the first arbitration was vacated upon a contractually expanded scope of judicial review-that the arbitrator could not make material errors of law. KeyClick maintains that this scope of review formed the law of the 17case and contends that the trial and appellate courts applied that scope of review by issuing rulings regarding material errors of law. KeyClick contends that these rulings established the law of the case and should have formed the basis for the trial court’s review of the second arbitration.

The law of the case refers to a policy by which the court will not reconsider prior rulings in the same case. Day v. Campbell-Grosjean Roofing & Sheet Metal Corp., 260 La. 325, 256 So.2d 105 (1971). The law of the case principle relates to (a) the binding force of trial court rulings during later stages of the trial, (b) the conclusive effects of appellate rulings at trial on remand, and (c) the rule that an appellate court will ordinarily not reconsider its own rulings of law on a subsequent appeal. Petition of Sewerage and Water Bd. of New Orleans, 278 So.2d 81, 83 (La.1973). Among reasons assigned for application of the policy are: the avoidance of indefinite relitigation of the same issue; the desirability of consistency of the result in the same litigation; and the efficiency, and the essential fairness to both sides, of affording a single opportunity for the argument and decision of the matter at issue. Id., 278 So.2d at 84.

The law of the case doctrine “may bar redetermination of a question of law or a mixed question of law and fact during the course of a judicial proceeding.” 1 Frank L. Maraist and Harry T. Lemmon, Louisiana Civil Law Treatise: Civil Procedure, § 6.7 (1999). Therefore, the law of the case doctrine is the proper procedural principle, as opposed to res judicata, for describing the relationship between prior judgments by trial and appellate courts rendered within the same case. Posey v. Smith, 453 So.2d 1016 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1984). The policy reasons behind the doctrine include: (i) avoiding re-litigation of the same issue, (ii) promoting consistency of result in the same litigation, and (iii) promoting 18efficiency and fairness to both parties by affording a single opportunity for the argument and decision of the matter at issue. Day v. Campbell-Grosjean Roofing & Sheet Metal Corp., 260 La. 325, 330, 256 So.2d 105, 107 (1971).

However, “[u]nlike the statutory doctrine of res judicata, the jurisprudential doctrine of law of the case is a discretionary guide that will not be applied inflexibly.” Daigre v. International Truck and Engine Corp., 10-1379, p. 15 (La.App. 4 Cir. 5/5/11), 67 So.3d 504, 513-514. “Argument is barred where there is merely doubt as to the correctness of the former holding, but not in cases of palpable former error or so mechanically as to accomplish manifest injustice.” Petition of Sewerage and Water Bd., 278 So.2d at 83. Moreover, jurisprudence provides that the law of the case doctrine “does not apply when the issues are not identical, when there is more than a mere doubt as to the correctness of the earlier decision, or when there is intervening case law.” Mann v. Brittany Place Associates Ltd,., 99-1588, p. 3 (La.App. 4th Cir.9/13/00), 770 So.2d 25, 27 (citing Stewart v. ARA Leisure Services., Inc., 97-1926 (La.App. 4 Cir. 10/29/97), 702 So.2d 75, 77) (emphasis supplied).

First, as KeyClick argues, the agreement that provides for arbitration is the source of the arbitrator’s powers. Section 5.17 of the subject agreement provides:

The decision of the arbitrator shall be final and binding upon the parties and may be enforced by any court of competent jurisdiction. The arbitrator shall have no authority to make material errors of law or to award punitive damages or to add to, modify or refuse to enforce any agreements between the parties.

However, Section 5.7 of the subject agreement reads in relevant part:

“This Agreement will be construed in accordance with and be governed by the laws of the state of Louisiana. This Agreement will be in compliance with all pertinent federal and |flstate statutes and regulations. If this Agreement, or any part hereof, is found not to be in compliance with any pertinent federal or state statute or regulation, then the parties may renegotiate the Agreement for the sole purpose of correcting the non-compliance.”

The trial judge found that the language contained in Section 5.17 of the agreement, which states that “[t]he arbitrator shall have no authority to make material errors of law”, did not attempt to broaden the scope of arbitration. However, if the language made such an attempt, the trial judge found that such attempt would be a direct contradiction to the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Hall Street Assocs. v. Mattel, Inc., 552 U.S. 576, 128 S.Ct. 1396, 170 L.Ed.2d 254 (2008). Therefore, “jurisdiction to vacate and/or modify the award must be done only in accordance with the enumerated criteria set forth [in the Louisiana and Federal Arbitration Acts].” We agree.

First, the agreement at issue provides for it to be construed in light of pertinent federal and state governance. We therefore find the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Hall Street, pertinent to our review, Id.

In Hall Street, the contract included the following language.

“[t]he United States District Court for the District of Oregon may enter judgment upon any award, either by confirming the award or by vacating, modifying or correcting the award. The Court shall vacate, modify or correct any award: (i) where the arbitrator’s findings of facts are not supported by substantial evidence, or (ii) where the arbitrator’s conclusions of law are erroneous.”

Id., 552 U.S. at 579,128 S.Ct. at 1400.

The United States Supreme Court held that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA; 9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq.) does not permit parties to expand the scope of review by agreement. Id., 552 U.S. at 590, 128 S.Ct. at 1406. The court |10concluded that the grounds for prompt vacatur or modification of an arbitral award enumerated in the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. §§ 10-11, are exclusive and parties may not expand the scope of review by agreement. Id.

Arbitration proceedings are governed by the Louisiana Arbitration Act, La.R.S. 9:4201 et seq. The statutory grounds for vacating an arbitration award are:

A. Where the award was procured by corruption, fraud, or undue means.
B. Where there was evident partiality or corruption on the part of the arbitrators or any of them.
C. Where the arbitrators were guilty of misconduct in refusing to postpone the hearing, upon sufficient cause shown, or in refusing to hear evidence pertinent and material to the controversy; or of any other misbehavior by which the rights of any party have been prejudiced.
D. Where the arbitrators exceeded their powers or so imperfectly executed them that a mutual, final, and definite award upon the subject matter submitted was not made.

La. R.S. 9:4210.

Applying the discretionary law of the case doctrine as KeyClick suggests would be contrary to intervening caselaw, which provides that the enumerated reasons for vacating an arbitral award as provided by Louisiana Arbitration Act are exclusive. Further, the parties do not cite any authority that creates an exception thereto.

We find that the arguments advanced by KeyClick do not fit the aforementioned enumerated reasons. Therefore, we find no merit in Appellant’s assertion regarding the discretionary law of the case doctrine and affirm.

|nATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS

The arbitrator granted awards to both parties with a net amount being awarded to KeyClick in the amount of $9,887.46. KeyClick maintains that because the net award was made in its favor, it is entitled to attorneys’ fees and costs as the “prevailing party” according to the agreement.

It is well settled that attorneys’ fees are not recoverable unless expressly authorized by statute or by a contract between the parties. See Huddleston v. Bossier Bank and Trust Co., 475 So.2d 1082, 1085 (La.1985). The arbitrator concluded that neither OHP nor KeyClick were entitled to attorney’s fees or costs pursuant to Section 5.17 of the agreement.

The arbitrator noted that while each party contends that it is “the prevailing party,” entitling it to attorneys’ fees and costs, no evidence was introduced to establish the amount of' attorneys’ fees. The arbitrator stated:

Each of the parties could argue that it “prevailed “on one issue or another and could even count up the points at issue throughout the years of litigation and arbitration. In that sense, both parties have prevailed and are, respectively, a “prevailing party” within the meaning of the arbitration agreement. It is so found. Having said that, in reality, no party prevailed to any significant degree on any significant issue which materially achieved their goal in bringing their initial claims and counterclaims (emphasis supplied).
Each party has prevailed on and will receive a monetary award. As for the fact that the net monetary award favors KeyClick, the Arbitrator considers this a technical victory based upon the mere crunching of the numbers. This technical victory is not considered sufficient to confer status as “prevailing party” so as to support an award of attorneys’ fees and costs (emphasis supplied).

In LHO New Orleans LM, L.P. v. MHI Leasco New Orleans, Inc., 06-0489, p. 20 (La.App. 4 Cir.4/16/08), 983 So.2d 217, 230, this Court found that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding attorneys’ fees and costs incurred for portions of litigation on which a party did not prevail. Here, the | ^arbitrator found that neither party prevailed and concluded that, therefore, neither party was entitled to attorneys’ fees and costs; the trial court affirmed that finding. We find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s confirmation of the assessment of attorneys’ fees made by the arbitrator and affirm.

DECREE

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment is affirmed. We find that the decision to vacate the 2003 arbitration award was not based on an expanded scope of judicial review. KeyClick’s request to reinstate the 2003 arbitration award is not properly before this Court. We find that applying the law of the case doctrine as KeyClick suggests would be contrary to intervening caselaw.

AFFIRMED

      . After the original arbitration proceedings, Ochsner Health Plan, Inc. was acquired by Humana Health Benefit System of Louisiana, Inc.

      . Advanced Medical Systems, Inc. (AMS), provided data processing services to Ochsner Health Plan (OHP). Thereafter, AMS changed its name to KeyClick Outsourcing, Inc.

        . Ochsner Health Plan, Inc. v. Advanced Medical Systems, Inc., 03-118 (La.App. 5 Cir. 5/28/03), 846 So.2d 1286.

      . We note that the grounds listed herein mirror those enumerated in the FAA.


author: EDWIN A. LOMBARD, Judge.

text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Jason DAUZART.
    No. 2011-KA-0688.
    Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.
    March 21, 2012.

      Leon A. Cannizzaro, Jr., District Attorney, Scott G. Vincent, Assistant District Attorney, New Orleans, LA, for The State of Louisiana.
    Sherry Watters, Louisiana Appellate Project, New Orleans, LA, for Defen-danVAppellant.
    Jason Dauzart, Cottonport, LA, Defendant/Appellant.
    (Court composed of Judge EDWIN A. LOMBARD, Judge PAUL A. BONIN, Judge ROSEMARY LEDET).
   EDWIN A. LOMBARD, Judge.

|, The defendant, Jason Dauzart, appeals his conviction and sentence for possession of cocaine. After review of the record in light of the applicable law and arguments of the parties, we affirm the defendant’s conviction and sentence.

Relevant Facts and Procedural History

In July 2009, Detective Todd Durel of the New Orleans Police Department (NOPD) Fifth District Narcotics Unit received a hotline complaint of possible narcotics trafficking at 1823 North Galvez Street. The complaint indicated that drugs were being sold at that address by a black male named Jason who had medium length dreadlocks, some facial hair, and was generally attired in white tee shirt and blue jeans. Accordingly, Detective Durel set up surveillance of the area and saw several men and women loitering in front of the residence, including the defendant who matched the description in the complaint. During the surveillance, several transactions were observed by the defendant and visitors to the location wherein the defendant either reached into his pocket and retrieved an item for the visitor or went into the residence and returned with an item for the visitor. Subsequently, Detective Durel conducted a controlled purchase using a confidential informant. Detective Durel observed the transaction between the defendant and the confidential informant (Cl) and, upon testing, the object given to |2the Cl by the defendant was revealed to be cocaine. Detective Durel then obtained a search warrant for 1823 North Galvez Street. On July 26, 2009, the defendant was observed in front of the residence but when Detective Durel left the area to prepare for execution of the search warrant, Detective Laurence Jones (who remained on site conducting surveillance) informed him that the defendant had left the area on a bicycle. Detective Durel opted to execute the search warrant and, prior to entering the residence, had the people loitering in front of the residence secured. The police officers entered the residence under the assumption that the residence was empty but found the defendant’s mother, Diane Jaekson, and several young children in the kitchen. The officers informed Ms. Jackson that they had a warrant to search for narcotics and a K-9 unit was brought into the residence. The dog alerted by a dresser in the front bedroom and eleven individually wrapped pieces of crack cocaine were found in the dresser drawer. Although children’s clothing and shoes were found in the bedroom, men’s clothing was found in the dresser as well as a Criminal District Court subpoena in the defendant’s name with 1823 North Galvez Street as the defendant’s address. The officers then conducted a systematic search of the residence. No other drugs were found, but a box of .45 caliber bullets was found in a closet in the front bedroom. Women’s clothing was found in the second bedroom, along with a Cox cable bill in the name of Diane Jackson and bearing the North Galvez Street address.

The officers advised Ms. Jackson that narcotics had been found and of her Miranda rights. Ms. Jackson indicated that she understood her rights and the officers asked if she could contact the defendant and ask him to return to the residence. She called her son and told him the police wanted him to return to the residence. She advised the defendant that if he came back, he would be the only Rperson arrested. Ms. Jackson then gave the telephone to Lieutenant Ceasar Ruffin, Detectives Durel and Jones’ supervisor, who spoke with the defendant. Lieutenant Ruffin told the defendant that he needed to return to the residence but the defendant refused. He then informed the defendant that if he did not return, his mother would be arrested. Lieutenant Ruffin gave the phone back to Ms. Jackson, who again asked the defendant to return home but the defendant refused and hung up. The police officers then advised Ms. Jackson again of her Miranda rights and arrested her for possession of narcotics. Detective Durel subsequently obtained an arrest warrant for the defendant for possession with the intent to distribute cocaine. The defendant was arrested one month later.

On September 15, 2009, the defendant was charged by bill of information with possession with the intent to distribute cocaine. The defendant pleaded not guilty at his arraignment on September 18, 2009. After a preliminary and suppression hearing on February 10, 2010, the trial court found probable cause and denied the defendant’s motion to suppress evidence. The defendant was found guilty as charged after a jury trial on April 21, 2010. On April 29, 2010, the trial court sentenced the defendant to serve eight years at hard labor, with credit for time served. A multiple bill hearing was conducted on August 20, 2010. The trial court found defendant to be a double offender, vacated the prior sentence and resentenced the defendant to serve eighteen years at hard labor, with credit for time served.

At trial, the defendant and the State stipulated that if John Palm, a NOPD criminologist, were to testify, he would state that the substances found in the front 14bedroom dresser tested positive for crack cocaine. Detectives Durel and Jones testified to the above-stated facts. Lieutenant Ruffin also testified, stating that he participated in the execution of the search warrant and corroborating the testimony of Detectives Durel and Jones.

Diane Jackson testified that on July 26, 2009, she was at home watching her grandchildren and her next door neighbor’s children. She was cooking in the kitchen when the police busted the front door open. The officers told her that they had a search warrant and asked for her name and address. The police brought in a K-9 dog and searched the house. Ms. Jackson stated that when Lieutenant Ruffin told her they were looking for her son, she told him that only she and her grandchildren lived in the house. She testified that the defendant did not live with her, although she acknowledged he had personal belongings in the house. She stated that in accordance with Lieutenant Ruffin’s instructions she contacted her son, advised him that the police were at the house and that he should return, but the defendant failed to adhere to her request. Ms. Jackson declared she was not aware of the narcotics in her house or of anyone selling drugs from her house. She stated that the defendant often visited her because his children lived with her. According to Ms. Jackson, her grandchildren share the front bedroom while she sleeps in the second bedroom. Ms. Jackson stated that she owned a .45 caliber Colt at one time. She also testified that she never saw her son selling drugs from her house, although she knew there were several people who hung out in front of her house who she assumed were neighbors. Although Ms. Jackson did not remember if Jason visited her on July 17, 2009, she was certain that he was not at her house on July 26, 2009. Ms. Jackson testified that the defendant was twenty-six years old, did not work, used to live with her on an occasional basis, and never had a steady place to live. |flThe children had been in Ms. Jackson’s care since infancy and, although the defendant often came over to help get them ready for school and occasionally gave her money for them, Ms. Jackson did not know where or with whom the defendant resided.

Nicole Roy testified that her mother lived near Ms. Jackson and that she visited her when she visited her mother, generally on a daily basis. Ms. Roy stated that she knows the defendant. She testified that she visited Ms. Jackson on July 17, 2009, and that the defendant was not there. Ms. Roy stated that there were several people who hung out in front of Ms. Jackson’s house, and a couple of them fit the complainant’s description. Ms. Roy had seen people selling drugs in the area but did not see the defendant selling drugs on July 17. Ms. Roy stated she was visiting her mother on July 26 and saw police at Ms. Jackson’s house later in the day. She and her mother went over to Ms. Jackson’s house to see what was going on. Ms. Roy testified that a police officer came out and made a statement that someone needed to contact the defendant and tell him to come home or his mother was going to jail. Ms. Roy stated that she called the defendant, who stated that he was at the casino. Ms. Roy testified that she was on the telephone with the defendant when his mother and the police officer called him.

Discussion

On appeal, the defendant argues that (1) the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction; (2) the trial court erred in denying his request for new counsel; and (3) his sentence is unconstitutionally excessive.

Error Patent Review

A review of the record for errors patent reveals that the trial court imposed an illegally lenient sentence. The defendant was convicted of possession with the | fimtent to distribute cocaine and later adjudicated a double offender. The trial court initially sentenced the defendant to serve eight years at hard labor. After the defendant was adjudicated a double offender, the trial court vacated the prior sentence and resentenced the defendant to serve eighteen years at hard labor. However, the trial court failed to state that the defendant would not be eligible for probation or suspension of sentence and not eligible for parole for the first two years of his sentence. La.Rev.Stat. 40:967(B)(4)(b) provides that a person convicted of possession with the intent to distribute “shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment at hard labor for not less than two years nor more than thirty years, with the first two years of said sentence being without benefit of parole, probation or suspension of sentence.” La.Rev.Stat. 15:529.1(A)(1) states that “[i]f the second felony is such that upon a first conviction the offender would be punishable by imprisonment for any term less than his natural life, then the sentence to imprisonment shall be for a determinate term not less than one-half the longest term and not more than twice the longest term prescribed for a first conviction.” Section G of the statute provides that “[a]ny sentence imposed under this Section shall be at hard labor without benefit of probation or suspension of sentence.”

Under La.Rev.Stat. 15:801.1 A and State v. Williams, 2000-1725 (La.11/28/01), 800 So.2d 790, the sentence is deemed to have been imposed with the restrictions, even in the absence of the trial court’s failure to delineate the restrictions. Thus, there is no need for this Court to correct the sentence. See State v. Phillips, 2003-0304 (La.App. 4 Cir. 7/23/03), 853 So.2d 675.

| Assignment of Error No. 1

The defendant contends that the State failed to produce sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he had possession with the intent to distribute cocaine. When assessing the sufficiency of evidence to support a conviction, we must determine whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found proof beyond a reasonable doubt of each of the essential elements of the crime charged. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); State v. Jacobs, 504 So.2d 817 (La.1987). In addition, when circumstantial evidence forms the basis of the conviction, such evidence must consist of proof of collateral facts and circumstances from which the existence of the main fact may be inferred according to reason and common experience. State v. Shapiro, 431 So.2d 372 (La.1982). The elements must be proven such that every reasonable hypothesis of innocence is excluded. La.Rev. Stat. 15:438. This statute, La.Rev.Stat. 15:488, is not a separate test from Jackson v. Virginia, supra, but rather is an eviden-tiary guideline to facilitate appellate review of whether a rational juror could have found a defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Wright, 445 So.2d 1198 (La.1984). All evidence, direct and circumstantial, must meet the Jackson reasonable doubt standard. State v. Jacobs, supra.

To support the defendant’s conviction, the State must prove that he “knowingly” and “intentionally” possessed the cocaine with the “intent to distribute”. State v. Williams, 594 So.2d 476, 478 (La. App. 4 Cir.1992). Specific intent to distribute may be established by proving circumstances surrounding defendant’s possession which give rise to a reasonable inference of intent to distribute. State v. Dickerson, 538 So.2d 1063 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1989). One need | snot actually possess the controlled dangerous substance to violate the prohibition against possession, constructive possession is sufficient. A person may be in constructive possession of a drug even though it is not in his physical custody if it is subject to his dominion and control. State v. Trahan, 425 So.2d 1222 (La.1983). Determination of whether a defendant had constructive possession depends on the circumstances of each ease. Among the factors to consider in determining whether the defendant exercised dominion and control sufficient to constitute constructive possession are (1) whether the defendant knew that illegal drugs were present in the area; (2) the defendant’s relationship to the person in actual possession of the drugs; (3) whether there is evidence of recent drug use; (4) the defendant’s proximity to the drugs; and (5) any evidence that the area is frequented by drug users. State v. Pollard, 93-1960, p. 13 (La.App. 4 Cir. 7/14/94), 640 So.2d 882, 888.

In the present case, Detective Du-rel testified that, in addition to the controlled purchase, he personally observed the defendant engage in five to seven narcotics transactions. The officer testified that during each transaction, the defendant accepted currency from the other person and either took an object from his pocket or went into the residence and returned to the person with an object. The officer also testified that that the cocaine found in residence was found in a bedroom that the defendant shared with his children. The individually wrapped pieces of crack cocaine were found in a dresser drawer which also contained a subpoena with the defendant’s name on it. The subpoena had the defendant’s address as 1823 North Galvez Street. The officer stated that men’s clothing was also found in the dresser. While Ms. Jackson testified that the defendant did not “live” with her, she acknowledged that the defendant stayed at the residence often |nand helped her with his children. Thus, the testimony presented was sufficient to prove that the defendant had possession of the cocaine with the intent to distribute.

The defendant also argues that the trial court erroneously allowed the State to introduce other crimes evidence, i.e., the criminal court subpoena found in the dresser drawer and the bullets found in the closet. This argument is without merit.. The discovery of the subpoena and the bullets during the execution of the search is clearly admissible under the res gestae exception. See La.Code Evid. art. 404(B). Under the res gestae exception, evidence of another crime is admissible “when it is related and intertwined with the charged offense to such an extent that the State could not have accurately presented its case without reference to the other crime.” State v. Colomb, 98-2813, p. 3 (La.10/1/99), 747 So.2d 1074, 1075. Further, the testimony concerning the discovery of the bullets does not constitute other crimes evidence as there is no crime for the possession of bullets. Additionally, the jury was not made aware that the subpoena found in the dresser was related to another ease in which the defendant was charged. The trial court only allowed the State to introduce testimony that the police officers found a criminal court subpoena in the defendant’s name. There was no other reference made to the subpoena, and the subpoena was not published to the jury. Thus, the jury had no information to suggest that the subpoena was related to another crime. For all the jury knew, the subpoena could have been for jury duty or to be a witness in another case. Thus, this assignment is without merit.

Assignment of Error No. 2

The defendant asserts that his trial counsel was ineffective and, accordingly, that the trial court erred in failing to appoint new counsel when so requested. Specifically, the defendant alleges that trial counsel was ineffective at all stages— |prior10 to trial, during trial, and after trial — in failing to procure needed discovery, failing to object to inadmissible evidence, failing to put forth a valid defense to the State’s evidence, and failing to file post-trial motions.

A defendant is entitled to effective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, § 13 of the Louisiana Constitution of 1974. To sustain a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, the defendant must show that (1) his counsel’s performance was deficient, and (2) the deficiency prejudiced him. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). The error is prejudicial if it was so serious as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial, or “a trial whose result is reliable.” Strickland v. Washington, supra. Thus, in order to prevail on a claim for ineffective assistance, a defendant must demonstrate a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceedings would have been different. Strickland, supra. Although claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are most appropriately addressed through an application for post-conviction relief rather than direct appeal, State v. Truitt, 500 So.2d 355 (La.1987), where the record contains sufficient evidence to decide the issue, an ineffective assistance of counsel claim may be addressed on direct appeal in the interest of judicial economy. State v. Peart, 621 So.2d 780 (La.1993).

In the present case, the defendant argues that his trial counsel was ineffective throughout his representation and assigns numerous instances of where he contends counsel was ineffective. The defendant asserts that trial counsel was ineffective at the preliminary hearing because trial counsel was not hearing or understanding the testimony properly. The defendant contends that trial counsel mistook the word “internet” for “incident,” and confused the dates of the controlled purchase and execution of the search warrant. However, a review of the ^preliminary hearing transcript indicates that the only error supported by the transcript is where trial counsel mistook the witness saying “internet” instead of “incident.” The defendant has not shown how the deficiency prejudiced him and prevented a fair trial.

The defendant also contends that trial counsel was ineffective because he failed to file pre-trial motions and was not ready for trial, although he stated he was, because counsel had not obtained a return on the subpoenas he sought to aid in the defendant’s alibi defense. The defendant further contends that trial counsel was ineffective during his opening argument when he referenced the controlled purchase. The defendant also suggests that trial counsel was ineffective when he did not develop a valid defense that the small amount of drugs was only for personal use. The defendant suggests that trial counsel was ineffective in failing to object to hearsay information and allowing the search warrant and arrest warrant to be published to the jury. The defendant also contends that trial counsel was ineffective in failing to object to a jury instruction on flight by the defendant. The defendant further argues that trial counsel was ineffective in failing to file post-trial motions. These allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel cannot be determined on appeal and should be raised by the defendant in an application for post-conviction relief.

The defendant further suggests that trial counsel was ineffective in failing to object to the State’s failure to file a multiple bill of information in the record. This issue must be addressed on appeal because sentencing errors are not renewable post-conviction. La.Code Crim. Proc. article 930.3; State v. Brown, 2003-2568 (La.3/26/04), 870 So.2d 976; State ex rel. Melinie v. State, 93-1380 (La.1/12/96), 665 So.2d 1172. A review of the appeal record indicates that the defendant is | ^correct that there is no multiple bill of information in the record. However, the defendant was not prejudiced by trial counsel’s failure to object. The multiple bill hearing indicates that the State introduced testimony from its fingerprint analysis expert who testified as to the identity of the defendant as the person convicted in the present case and as the person who pleaded guilty on December 18, 2011, to the crime of possession of a stolen vehicle valued over five hundred dollars. The witness was subject to substantial cross-examination by defense counsel, which included questioning the methodology and expertise of the witness, prior to the trial court finding the defendant to be a second felony offender

This assignment of error is without merit.

Assignment of Error No. 3

Finally, the defendant contends that the trial court imposed an excessive sentence. After adjudicating the defendant a double offender, the trial court sentenced the defendant to serve eighteen years at hard labor. This sentence was three years over the minimum sentence the trial court could impose. See La.Rev.Stat. 40:497(B) and La.Rev.Stat. 15:529.1.

Louisiana Constitution of 1974, art. I, § 20 provides, in pertinent part, that “[n]o law shall subject any person to ... excessive ... punishment.” Although a sentence is within statutory limits, it can be reviewed for constitutional excessiveness. State v. Sepulvado, 367 So.2d 762, 767 (La.1979). A sentence is unconstitutionally excessive when it imposes punishment grossly disproportionate to the severity of the offense or constitutes nothing more than needless infliction of pain and suffering. State v. Bonanno, 384 So.2d 355, 357 (La.1980). A trial judge has broad discretion when imposing sentence, and a reviewing court may not set a sentence aside absent a manifest abuse of discretion. State v. Cann, 471 So.2d 701, 703 (La.1985). On appellate review of a sentence, the relevant question is not whether another sentence might have been more appropriate but whether the trial court abused its broad sentencing discretion. State v. Walker, 2000-3200, p. 2 (La.10/12/01), 799 So.2d 461, 462; cf. State v. Phillips, 2002-0737, p. 1 (La.11/15/02), 831 So.2d 905, 906.

The trial judge’s failure to comply with La.Code Crim. Proc. article 894.1 does not automatically render a sentence invalid. The Louisiana Supreme Court has held that although Article 894.1 provides useful guidelines for the determination of the nature and length of a sentence, compliance with its provisions is not an end in itself. State v. Wimberly, 414 So.2d 666 (La.1982). Article 894.1 is intended to provide an impartial set of guidelines within which the trial judge’s sentencing discretion may be exercised. State v. Price, 403 So.2d 660 (La.1981); State v. Douglas, 389 So.2d 1263 (La.1980). Compliance with Article 894.1 further provides a record which is detailed enough to allow for a reasoned review of allegedly excessive sentences. The articulation of the factual basis for a sentence is the goal of Article 894.1, not rigid or mechanical compliance with its provisions. A remand is unnecessary where the record clearly shows an adequate factual basis for the sentence imposed, even where there has not been full compliance with Article 894.1. State v. Boatright, 406 So.2d 163 (La.1981).

In the case at bar, the trial court did not provide reasons for the sentence imposed but noted that the defendant was a second offender, having been convicted of possession of a stolen automobile valued over five hundred dollars in December 2001. The trial court sat through the trial and recognized the danger the defendant put his children in when he sold narcotics from the residence in which they lived. The trial court heard testimony that the defendant refused to return to 114the residence, knowing that his failure to return would result in his mother’s arrest. The trial court also was aware that the defendant had other pending criminal charges, including possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. Thus, it cannot be said that the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing the defendant to eighteen years at hard labor.

Conclusion

We affirm the defendant’s conviction and sentence.

AFFIRMED.

      . The defendant's mother, Diane Jackson, was charged in the same bill of information with possession of cocaine. She was found not guilty after a jury trial on April 21, 2010.


author: THIBODEAUX, Chief Judge.

text:
    Willie J. ZENO, Sr. v. Joslyn Renee ALEX.
    No. 11-1240.
    Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.
    April 4, 2012.
    Rehearing Denied June 20, 2012.
    See also, 62 So.3d 303.

      Jo Ann Nixon, Glenda August & Assoc., New Iberia, LA, for Defendant/Appellee, Joslyn Renee Alex.
    Willie J. Zeno, Sr., Lafayette, LA, In Proper Person, Plaintiff/Appellant, Willie J. Zeno, Sr.
    Court composed of ULYSSES GENE THIBODEAUX, Chief Judge, JAMES T. GENOVESE, and SHANNON J. GREMILLION, Judges.
   THIBODEAUX, Chief Judge.

hThe plaintiff, Willie J. Zeno, Sr., appeals a judgment granting an exception of prescription in favor of the defendant, Jos-lyn Renee Alex. We affirm.

I.

ISSUES

We must decide whether the trial court erred in granting the defendant’s exception of prescription.

II.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Willie Zeno, Sr. filed a Workers’ Compensation claim against his employer for an injury in 1989. A trial date was set for March 1992. Mr. Zeno’s attorney withdrew from the case two days before trial. Mr. Zeno hired the defendant, Joslyn Alex, on March 10, and he and Ms. Alex appeared for trial on March 11,1992.

Mr. Zeno filed suit against Ms. Alex on February 9, 2010, for legal malpractice and fraud. He alleges that Ms. Alex mishandled a settlement conference on the trial date of March 11, 1992, and continued the trial until May 20, 1992, | ¿without informing him and without getting the continu-anee in writing. He asserts that no trial took place on May 20, 1992, in spite of a February 8, 1993 judgment in favor of his employer referencing that trial date. Mr. Zeno further asserts that Ms. Alex mishandled the appeal in 1993 and that her actions and inactions constituted fraud. Ms. Alex filed numerous exceptions including exceptions of prescription and peremption.

On June 28, 2010, the trial court heard Mr. Zeno’s rule to provide documentary proof of the settlement attempts, the continuance in March 1992, and a transcript of the trial on May 20, 1992. The defendant, Ms. Alex, appeared in proper person and explained that no one, including the Workers’ Compensation offices in Lafayette and Lake Charles, and the defense attorney, Mr. Foret, had been able to find the transcript from eighteen years before. The trial court found that Ms. Alex had supplied all of the documents that she had and told Mr. Zeno to set the matter for trial.

Following a hearing on February 28, 2011, the trial court granted Ms. Alex’s exception of prescription. Mr. Zeno filed this appeal. For the following reasons, we affirm the trial court’s July 2011 judgment granting Ms. Alex’s exception of prescription.

III.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

An appellate court may not set aside a trial court’s findings of fact in the absence of manifest error or unless it is clearly wrong. Stobart v. State, Through\DOTD, 617 So.2d 880 (La.1993). Reversible errors of law are reviewed de novo. Rosell v. ESCO, 549 So.2d 840 (La.1989).

IV.

LAW AND DISCUSSION

Mr. Zeno contends that the trial court erred in granting Ms. Alex’s exception of prescription and in dismissing his suit against her for legal malpractice. He argues that Ms. Alex committed fraud in 1992 during her representation of him and that peremption under La.R.S. 9:5605 does not apply in cases of fraud. This is an incorrect statement of the law. Louisiana Revised Statutes 9:5605, addressing all actions for legal malpractice, provides as follows:

A, No action for damages against any attorney at law duly admitted to practice in this state, any partnership of such attorneys at law, or any professional corporation, company, organization, association, enterprise, or other commercial business or professional combination authorized by the laws of this state to engage in the practice of law, whether based upon tort, or breach of contract, or otherwise, arising out of an engagement to provide legal services shall be brought unless filed in a court of competent jurisdiction and proper venue within one year from the date of the alleged act, omission, or neglect, or within one year from the date that the alleged act, omission, or neglect is discovered or should have been discovered; however, even as to actions filed within one year from the date of such discovery, in all events such actions shall be filed at the latest within three years from the date of the alleged act, omission, or neglect.
B. The provisions of this Section are remedial and apply to all causes of action without regard to the date when the alleged act, omission, or neglect occurred. However, with respect to any alleged act, omission, or neglect occurring prior to September 7, 1990, actions must, in all events, be filed in a court of competent jurisdiction and proper venue on or before September 7, 1993, without regard to the date of discovery of the alleged act, omission, or neglect. The one-year and three-year periods of limitation provided in Subsection A of this Section are peremptive periods within the 14meaning of Civil Code Article 3458 and, in accordance with Civil Code Article 3461, may not be renounced, interrupted, or suspended.
C. Notwithstanding any other law to the contrary, in all actions brought in this state against any attorney at law duly admitted to practice in this state, any partnership of such attorneys at law, or any professional law corporation, company, organization, association, enterprise, or other commercial business or professional combination authorized by the laws of this state to engage in the practice of law, the prescriptive and per-emptive period shall be governed exclusively by this Section.
D. The provisions of this Section shall apply to all persons whether or not infirm or under disability of any kind and including minors and interdicts.
E. The peremptive period provided in Subsection A of this Section shall not apply in cases of fraud, as defined in Civil Code Article 1953.

Based upon Subsections (A) through (D) above, an action for legal malpractice must be brought, at the latest, within three years of the date of the alleged malpractice, regardless of when the act of malpractice was discovered. According to Mr. Zeno, Ms. Alex mishandled the settlement conference and continuance in March of 1992, the trial in May of 1992, and the appeal in 1993. Thus, suit should have been filed under those subsections no later than 1996. Mr. Zeno filed suit against Ms. Alex on February 9, 2010, seventeen years after the alleged acts and fourteen years after the deadlines for filing pursuant to La.R.S. 9:5605(A) through (D).

Mr. Zeno argues that his malpractice claim has not prescribed because Ms. Alex’s actions constituted fraud, which, according to him, never prescribes under La.R.S. 9:5605(E). This is not a correct statement of the law. We have held that Subsection (E) of the statute provides that the three-year peremptive period of Subsection (A) does not apply in cases of fraud, but the one-year peremptive period, from the date of the discovery of the fraud, does apply. Dauterive Contractors, Inc. v. Landry and Watkins, 01-1112 (La.App. 3 Cir. 3/13/02), 811 So.2d 1242. Claims against attorneys, including claims for fraud, still must be brought under the statute, pursuant to La.R.S. 9:5605(C). At the oral argument of his appeal before this court, Mr. Zeno asserted that he discovered the “fraud” when he was in paralegal school in 1995 or 1996. Based upon this assertion, he should have brought suit no later than 1997.

To the extent that Mr. Zeno argues a continuing tort, the Louisiana Supreme Court has held that contra non valentem does not apply to peremption. Reeder v. North, 97-239 (La.10/21/97), 701 So.2d 1291.

V.

CONCLUSION

Based upon the foregoing, we affirm the July 5, 2011 judgment of the trial court granting Ms. Alex’s exception of prescription. All costs of this appeal are assessed against Mr. Zeno.

AFFIRMED.

      . In connection with the 1989 Workers’ Compensation injury, Mr. Zeno has unsuccessfully sued his first attorney, Warren Perrin, his employer’s defense attorney, Charles Foret, and the Workers’ Compensation Judge, Sheral C. Kellar. Mr. Zeno also sued his employer for fraud in Zeno v. Flowers Baking Co., 10-1413 (La.App. 3 Cir. 4/6/11), 62 So.3d 303, writ denied, 11-1234 (La.9/23/11), 69 So.3d 1161. There, we found insufficient evidence of fraud and affirmed the employer’s exceptions of prescription and res judicata. We also found "repetitive and duplicitous actions” constituting "an abuse of the judicial system,” and we affirmed an award of sanctions against Mr. Zeno in the amount of $500.00. Zeno, 62 So.3d at 307. The current record indicates that Mr. Zeno has continued his pattern of repetitive, duplicitous filings and judicial abuse. While we believe that sanctions are again needed, we will not impose them in this case for procedural reasons.
      However, we note that Mr. Zeno’s duplicity is even more egregious because his papers are fraught with inaccurate dates and careless references; they contain an extraordinary number of attachments that cannot be reviewed by this court unless they are already in the record. Specifically in violation of Uniform Rules — Courts of Appeal, Rule 2-12.4, none of Mr. Zeno’s arguments and factual accounts are clear, concise, and confined strictly to the issues of the case; and none are supported with citations to the pages in the record. Pursuant to Rule 2-12.4, we can disregard any argument on an assigned error that does not include a suitable reference by volume and page number to the place in the appeal record containing the basis for the error.

      . After filing his appeal with this court, Mr. Zeno filed a "Motion to Dismiss the Appeal as Moot.” Since Mr. Zeno is the appellant, we can only interpret his motion as supplemental argument for overturning the judgment, not his own appeal, now under review. Principally, Mr. Zeno argues that the judgment is "moot” because it refers to a hearing on May 16, 2011, while the actual hearing on prescription was held on February 28, 2011. The judgment is not moot for that reason.
      While it is true that the judgment does reflect the wrong hearing date, the error is harmless. We had already ordered the trial court to supplement the record with the transcript from the February 28, 2011 hearing, which we received and reviewed.
      Because we have found that Mr. Zeno's suit against Ms. Alex has prescribed, we will not address his "subpoena” to this court for the production of documents.