text:
    STATE of Florida, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE obo Lacey M. WHITTAKER, Appellant, v. Christopher G. VEACH, Appellee.
    No. 1D11-4923.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    April 4, 2012.
    Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Toni C. Bernstein, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellant.
    No appearance for Appellee.
   PER CURIAM.

In light of this Court’s decision in Department of Revenue ex rel. Sherman v. Daly, 74 So.3d 165 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011), the final administrative support order being appealed herein is reversed, and the matter is remanded to the Division of Administrative Hearings for further proceedings consistent with Daly.

REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings.

VAN NORTWICK, LEWIS, and SWANSON, JJ., concur.


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: PER CURIAM.

license: Public Domain

text:
    Brett J. FRANKLIN, Appellant, v. STATE, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM obo Thanya E. PEREZ, Appellee.
    No. 1D11-6295.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    April 4, 2012.
    Brett J. Franklin, pro se, for Petitioner.
    Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Toni C. Bernstein, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.
   PER CURIAM.

Brett J. Franklin appeals an administrative child support order and an income deduction order. He argues that he did not receive adequate notice of the proceedings and that the amount of child support ordered is excessive in light of his income. Appellee concedes error. We therefore reverse the orders on appeal and remand to the lower tribunal for further proceedings.

REVERSED.

BENTON, C.J, WOLF and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.


text:
    In re John J. FINCKBEINER, Jr.
    No. 2012-B-0390.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 23, 2012.
   ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS

PER CURIAM.

LThe Office of Disciplinary Counsel (“ODC”) commenced an investigation into allegations that respondent exceeded the scope of the representation of his client, neglected a legal matter, and failed to communicate with his client. Following the filing of formal charges, respondent and the ODC submitted a joint petition for consent discipline. Having reviewed the petition,

IT IS ORDERED that the Petition for Consent Discipline be accepted and that John J. Finckbeiner, Jr., Louisiana Bar Roll number 18211, be publicly reprimanded.

IT IS ORDERED that the Petition for Consent Discipline be accepted and that John J. Finckbeiner, Jr., Louisiana Bar Roll number 18211, be publicly reprimanded.

       Chief Justice Kimball not participating in the opinion.


author: PER CURIAM

text:
    In re Michael S. ZERLIN.
    No. 2012-B-0396.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 23, 2012.
   ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS

PER CURIAM

_JjThe Office of Disciplinary Counsel (“ODC”) commenced an investigation into allegations that respondent neglected a legal matter and failed to communicate with a client. Prior to the filing of formal charges, respondent and the ODC submitted a joint petition for consent discipline. Having reviewed the petition,

IT IS ORDERED that the Petition for Consent Discipline be accepted and that Michael S. Zerlin, Louisiana Bar Roll number 21959, be publicly reprimanded. It is further ordered that respondent attend and successfully complete the Louisiana State Bar Association's Ethics School.

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

       Chief Justice Kimball not participating in the opinion.


text:
    In re David P. ADAMS.
    No. 2012-B-0392.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 23, 2012.
   ORDER

11The Office of Disciplinary Counsel (“ODC”) is conducting an investigation into allegations that respondent engaged in multiple instances of serious attorney misconduct, including commingling and conversion of client funds. Respondent now seeks to permanently resign from the practice of law in lieu of discipline. The ODC has concurred in respondent’s petition.

Having considered the Petition for Permanent Resignation from the Practice of Law filed by David P. Adams, Louisiana Bar Roll number 22224, and the concurrence thereto filed by the ODC,

IT IS ORDERED that the request of David P. Adams for permanent resignation in lieu of discipline be and is hereby granted, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 20.1 and Rule 5.5 of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that David P. Adams shall be permanently prohibited from practicing law in Louisiana or in any other jurisdiction in which he is admitted to the practice of law; shall be permanently prohibited from seeking readmission to the practice of law in this state or in any other jurisdiction in which he is admitted; and shall be permanently prohibited from seeking admission to the practice of law in any jurisdiction.

FOR THE COURT:

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


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Emory WALTERS.
    No. 2012-KK-0667.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 28, 2012.
   PER CURIAM.

11 Writ granted. Reversed and remanded. The state’s notice of intent to introduce other crimes evidence gave adequate notice to the defendant of the nature of the evidence that the state intends to introduce. Further, the fact that the crime intended to be introduced occurred less than one month prior to the crime for which defendant is to be tried indicates that the evidence of such crime is more probative than prejudicial. The trial court erred by focusing more on the means that the state might use to introduce the evidence than on whether the evidence was more probative than prejudicial. The means of introducing the evidence must, of course, adhere to the Code of Evidence, but that is a ruling which must be made at the time the evidence is introduced at trial. The matter is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.

JOHNSON, J., would deny.


text:
    In re Clifford L. NEWMAN.
    No. 2012-B-0259.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 30, 2012.
   ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS

PER CURIAM.

| ,This disciplinary matter arises from formal charges filed by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (“ODC”) against respondent, Clifford L. Newman, an attorney licensed to practice law in Louisiana.

UNDERLYING FACTS

08-DB-035

The Conway Matter

The following facts are not in dispute, having been stipulated to by the parties:

Jovita Conway was injured on August 3, 2000 onboard the Enchanted Capri cruise ship. On August 8, 2000, Ms. Conway hired respondent to represent her in the related personal injury matter. Respondent and Ms. Conway entered into a contingency fee agreement that was not reduced to writing.

On August 5, 2002, respondent filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana on behalf of Ms. Conway and her husband. However, the defendants named in the lawsuit were the incorrect parties. Consequently, the lawsuit was dismissed with prejudice, and Ms. Conway lost her claim.

|2On or about March 31, 2005, Ms. Conway terminated respondent’s services via a hand-delivered letter. The letter requested all of Ms. Conway’s files and property, which she indicated she would pick up on April 4, 2005. Respondent acknowledged receipt of the letter.

On April 18, 2005, Ms. Conway’s new attorney, Richard Gallagher, sent respondent a fax, again requesting Ms. Conway’s entire file. Respondent acknowledged receipt of the fax. On April 26, 2005, Mr. Gallagher faxed another letter to respondent, requesting Ms. Conway’s entire file by May 4, 2005. Respondent acknowledged receipt of the fax. On or about May 4, 2005, Mr. Gallagher telephoned respondent and spoke with his staff to determine the status of the file. Respondent acknowledged the telephone call.

Mr. Gallagher filed a disciplinary complaint against respondent for respondent’s failure to turn over Ms. Conway’s file. Respondent received the complaint on or about July 1, 2005. Through counsel retained to represent him in the disciplinary matter, respondent finally delivered Ms. Conway’s file to Mr. Gallagher on August 1, 2005.

On or about July 15, 2005, Mr. Gallagher filed a malpractice lawsuit against respondent on Ms. Conway’s behalf, alleging respondent’s failure to name and pursue the proper defendants in Ms. Conway’s lawsuit, his failure to adequately communicate the status of Ms. Conway’s claim and lawsuit, and his failure to provide Ms. Conway’s file. Ms. Conway settled the malpractice lawsuit against respondent, and the lawsuit was dismissed with prejudice on May 6, 2008.

The ODC alleged respondent’s conduct violated the following provisions of the Rules of Professional Conduct: Rules 1.1(a) (failure to provide competent representation to a client), 1.3 (failure to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client), 1.4 (failure to communicate with a client), |31.5(c) (contingency fee agreements), 1.16(d) (obligations upon termination of the representation), and 8.4(a) (violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct).

W-DB-01,.9

The Vital Matter

By way of background, in December 1997, Bryant Vital was the driver of a vehicle that was involved in an automobile accident. Both Mr. Vital and his passenger, Howard Patterson, were injured in the accident.

Thereafter, Mr. Vital and Mr. Patterson both hired respondent’s law firm, through consultation with a former associate attorney, to represent them. Mr. Vital signed a written contingency fee agreement with the firm. However, neither respondent nor his associate discussed with Mr. Vital and Mr. Patterson the possibility of a conflict of interest between them.

Respondent filed a lawsuit on behalf of both Mr. Vital and Mr. Patterson. Thereafter, he settled Mr. Patterson’s claims, and his staff closed his file. Because Mr. Vital’s information was contained in the same file as Mr. Patterson’s, respondent failed to pursue Mr. Vital’s claim after Mr. Patterson’s claim settled. Consequently, Mr. Vital’s lawsuit was dismissed as abandoned on April 30, 2003.

Between April 30, 2003 and October 10, 2008, when Mr. Vital filed a disciplinary complaint against respondent, respondent did not make contact with Mr. Vital, did not respond to Mr. Vital’s requests for information about his case, and did not inform Mr. Vital that his lawsuit had been dismissed as abandoned. After respondent was notified of Mr. Vital’s disciplinary complaint, he arranged to meet with Mr. Vital at his office. Mr. Vital brought his friend, Mary Sam, to the meeting. During the meeting, respondent informed Mr. Vital that he wanted to pay Mr. Vital the value of his claim and gave Mr. Vital a $3,000 check to that end. RHowever, respondent did so without advising Mr. Vital in writing that he should seek the advice of independent counsel.

The ODC alleged respondent’s conduct violated the following provisions of the Rules of Professional Conduct: Rules 1.1(a), 1.3, 1.4, 1.5(c), 1.7 (conflict of interest), 1.8(h)(2) (a lawyer shall not settle a claim or potential claim for malpractice liability with an unrepresented client or former client unless that person is advised in writing of the desirability of seeking and is given a reasonable opportunity to seek the advice of independent legal counsel in connection therewith), 3.2 (failure to make reasonable efforts to expedite litigation), 5.3 (failure to properly supervise a non-lawyer assistant), 8.4(a), and 8.4(d) (engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice).

DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS

In March 2008, the ODC filed formal charges against respondent in 08-DB-035. In August 2010, the ODC filed formal charges against respondent in 10-DB-049. Respondent, through counsel, answered both sets of formal charges, denying certain factual allegations while admitting to others. The matters were then consolidated before proceeding to a formal hearing on the merits, conducted by the hearing committee in February 2011. During the hearing, the parties submitted a joint stipulation of facts with respect to the Conway matter.

Hearing Committee Report

After considering the testimony and evidence presented at the hearing, the hearing committee adopted the parties’ stipulated facts as its factual findings in the Conway matter and made factual findings in the Vital matter consistent with the underlying facts set forth above. Based on those facts, the committee determined |Bthat respondent violated the Rules of Professional Conduct as alleged in both sets of formal charges, with the following exceptions:

In the Vital matter, the committee determined that, contrary to the factual allegations of the formal charges, respondent’s associate did secure written contingency fee agreements with both Mr. Vital and Mr. Patterson. The committee further determined that the ODC failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that respondent or his associate violated rules regarding conflicts of interest by accepting the representation of both Mr. Vital and Mr. Patterson. Although the committee acknowledged the potential for a conflict of interest, it found no evidence to establish that Mr. Vital or Mr. Patterson were guilty of causing the underlying automobile accident, which would have provided a cause of action by one against the other. Therefore, there was no evidence of a significant risk that the representation of either client would be materially limited by respondent’s responsibility to the other. Nevertheless, the committee found that it would have been appropriate for respondent or his associate to secure written acknowledgements and waivers of the potential conflict of interest before proceeding with the representations.

Before recommending a sanction for respondent’s misconduct, the committee considered the aggravating and mitigating factors present. In aggravation, the committee found prior disciplinary offenses (a 1991 admonition), a pattern of misconduct, multiple offenses, and substantial experience in the practice of law (admitted 1971). In mitigation, the committee found only the remoteness of respondent’s prior disciplinary offense. However, the committee also expressed its astonishment that respondent could not recall the circumstances that led to his admonition.

Under these circumstances, the committee recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for three months, followed by one year of | fiprobation with the condition that he complete the Louisiana State Bar Association’s Ethics School.

Respondent objected to the hearing committee’s recommended sanction, arguing that it was “unusually harsh and severe.” Respondent claimed that the committee placed undue significance on the fact that he could not recall the underlying misconduct that led to his admonition, noting that the ODC also did not know what misconduct led to his admonition. Respondent argued that prior disciplinary offenses should not be given great weight when they are remote in time. Respondent also argued in mitigation that he made full restitution to both Ms. Conway and Mr. Vital. Finally, respondent pointed out that his associate was handling the Vital case when it prescribed, and, other than not putting the resolution in writing, respondent acted appropriately in resolving Mr. Vital’s claim. Based on these arguments, respondent requested that he be publicly reprimanded or receive a fully deferred suspension.

Disciplinary Board Recommendation

After review, the disciplinary board determined that the hearing committee was correct in accepting the facts as stipulated to by the parties. The board also determined that the committee’s additional factual findings regarding the Vital matter do not appear to be manifestly erroneous.

The board further determined that the committee correctly applied the Rules of Professional Conduct. Specifically, in the Conway matter, the board found that respondent violated Rules 1.1(a), 1.3, and 3.2 by filing Ms. Conway’s lawsuit two years after being hired and naming improper parties as the defendants, which led to the dismissal of the lawsuit. Thereafter, respondent failed to take any steps to remedy his error, and Ms. Conway ultimately lost her claim. He also violated Rule 1.4 because Ms. Conway made numerous attempts to contact him, but he could not |7be reached. Furthermore, respondent did not have a written contingency fee agreement with Ms. Conway, in violation of Rule 1.5(c). Respondent also violated Rule 1.16(d) by failing to promptly release Ms. Conway’s file after she terminated the representation, despite multiple requests from Ms. Conway and her new attorney. Finally, the board found that respondent violated Rule 8.4(a) in the Conway matter by violating the above Rules of Professional Conduct. In the Vital matter, the board found that respondent violated Rules 1.1(a), 1.3, and 3.2 when he abandoned Mr. Vital’s claim after Mr. Patterson’s claim was settled and their combined file was closed. Respondent also violated Rule 1.4 because Mr. Vital made numerous requests for information regarding his claim to no avail. Furthermore, between the 2003 dismissal of Mr. Vital’s lawsuit on the grounds of abandonment and the 2008 filing of Mr. Vital’s disciplinary complaint, respondent never contacted Mr. Vital or informed him of the dismissal. Thereafter, respondent settled Mr. Vital’s claim for malpractice without notifying him in writing that he may want to seek the advice of independent counsel, in violation of Rules 1.8(h)(2) and 8.4(d). By failing to adequately supervise his staff, which resulted in Mr. Vital’s file being closed when his case was still pending, respondent violated Rule 5.3. Finally, the board found that respondent violated Rule 8.4(a) in the Vital matter by violating the above Rules of Professional Conduct. The board agreed with the committee that respondent did not violate Rules 1.5 and 1.7 in the Vital matter.

The board then determined that respondent violated duties owed to his clients, the legal system, and the legal profession. Respondent initially acted with negligence but then knowingly failed to remedy his mistakes or inform his clients of them. His misconduct caused substantial harm to his clients. After reviewing the ABA’s Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, the board determined that |8the baseline sanction is suspension. The board agreed with the aggravating and mitigating factors found by the committee.

After further considering this court’s prior jurisprudence involving similar misconduct, the board determined that an actual period of suspension is necessary. Accordingly, the board recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for 90 days, with all but 30 days deferred, followed by one year of probation with the condition that he complete the Louisiana State Bar Association’s Ethics School.

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

DISCUSSION

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

In this matter, the record supports a finding that respondent neglected two legal matters, failed to communicate with two clients, failed to reduce a contingency fee agreement to writing, settled a malpractice claim with a client without informing the client in writing to seek the advice of independent counsel, and failed to promptly return a client’s file upon termination of the representation. Based on these findings, respondent has violated the Rules of Professional Conduct as found by the hearing committee and the disciplinary board.

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

We agree with the board that respondent initially acted with negligence but then knowingly failed to remedy his mistakes or inform his clients of same. We also agree that his misconduct caused substantial harm to his clients as both Ms. Conway and Mr. Vital lost their claims due to respondent’s misconduct. The baseline sanction for this type of misconduct is suspension.

The record supports the aggravating factors found by the committee and the board. In mitigation, the record indicates the presence of the following: the absence of a dishonest or selfish motive, full and free disclosure to the disciplinary board and a cooperative attitude toward the proceedings, imposition of other penalties or sanctions (respondent paid approximately $57,000 of his own money to settle Ms. Conway’s malpractice lawsuit against him), and remoteness of prior offenses.

Turning to the issue of an appropriate sanction, the prior jurisprudence of this court suggests that the board’s recommended sanction is within the range of appropriate sanctions for respondent’s misconduct. For example, in In re: Fazande, 03-2210 (La.1/21/04), 864 So.2d 174, an attorney neglected two legal matters and failed to communicate with two clients. Noting that “[t]he baseline sanction for misconduct involving multiple instances of neglect and failure to communicate is generally a suspension, which is sometimes deferred in part,” we imposed a six-month suspension, with three months deferred, followed by one year of unsupervised probation. In In re: Dunn, 98-0535 (La.6/5/98), 713 So.2d 461, an attorney allowed a client’s case to be dismissed on grounds of abandonment and then tried to monetarily settle the malpractice liability with the client without suggesting that the client seek advice from independent counsel. For this misconduct, we imposed a fully deferred six-month suspension, subject to one year of probation with conditions. Finally, in In re: Heisler, 06-1202 (La.11/3/06), 941 So.2d 20, an attorney neglected a legal matter and attempted to remedy his malpractice through an improper settlement with the client. For this misconduct, we imposed a fully deferred one-year suspension, subject to one year of unsupervised probation.

Under these circumstances, we find the board’s recommended sanction is reasonable. Accordingly, we will adopt the board’s recommendation and impose a 90-day suspension, with all but 30 days deferred, followed by one year of probation with the condition that respondent complete the Louisiana State Bar Association’s Ethics School.

DECREE

Upon review of the findings and recommendations of the hearing committee and disciplinary board, and considering the record, it is ordered that Clifford L. Newman, Louisiana Bar Roll number 9109, be and he hereby is suspended from the practice of law for ninety days. It is further ordered that all but thirty days of the suspension shall be deferred. Following the active portion of the suspension, respondent shall successfully complete a one-year period of probation, during which he shall also complete the Louisiana State Bar Association’s Ethics School. The probationary period shall commence from the date respondent and the ODC execute a formal probation plan. Any failure of respondent to comply with the conditions of probation, or any misconduct during the probationary period, may be grounds for making the deferred portion of the suspension executory, or imposing [^additional discipline, as appropriate. All costs and expenses in the matter are assessed against respondent in accordance with Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 10.1, with legal interest to commence thirty days from the date of finality of this court’s judgment until paid.

       Chief Justice Kimball not participating in the opinion.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Ashleigh THORNTON.
    No. 2012-KK-0095.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 30, 2012.
   PER CURIAM.

| ^Granted. The trial court erred in granting defendant/respondent’s motion to suppress on grounds that intoxication rendered her statements to the police involuntary. Although in the past this Court rejected the view in other jurisdictions that “a confession may be involuntary in the due process sense only where the de-clarant has been subjected to police custody, external pressure or coercion,” State v. Glover, 343 So.2d 118, 128 (La.1976) (on reh’g) (statements made by defendant to his former common-law wife wired for sound by the police rendered involuntary as a result of defendant’s florid undifferentiated schizophrenia), our current jurisprudence subscribes as a matter of state law to the rule of Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157, 167, 107 S.Ct. 515, 522, 93 L.Ed.2d 473 (1986), that “coercive police activity is a necessary predicate to the finding that a confession is not ‘voluntary’ within the meaning of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.” See, e.g., State v. Square, 10-2414 (La.11/3/10), 46 So.3d 1239, 1240 (trial court’s suppression of defendant’s spontaneous statements was “contrary to the larger body of jurisprudence on voluntariness”) (citing Connelly); State v. Schrader, 518 So.2d 1024, 1027 (La.1988) (“[A]n essential prerequisite for suppressing a statement on voluntariness grounds is misconduct or overreaching by the police.”) (citing Connelly); see also State v. Green, 655 So.2d 272, 279, n. 7 (La.1995) (“This Court has endorsed, without much discussion, the Supreme Court’s current approach.”) (citing Schrader). The same standard governs the voluntariness of an antecedent waiver of rights conferred by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). Connelly, 479 U.S. at 169-70, 107 S.Ct. at 523 (“There is obviously no reason to require more in the way of a ‘voluntariness’ inquiry in the Miranda waiver context than in the Fourteenth Amendment confession context.”).

Connelly has therefore also modified our former jurisprudential rule that intoxication may negate the voluntariness of a statement if it is of such a degree that it renders the defendant “unconscious of the consequences of what he is saying.” State v. Simmons, 443 So.2d 512, 516 (La.1983). After Connelly, diminished mental capacity, which may result from intoxication, remains relevant to the voluntariness of a statement only to the extent that it “made mental or physical coercion by the police more effective.” United States v. Chrismon, 965 F.2d 1465, 1469 (7th Cir.1992); see also United States v. Gaddy, 532 F.3d 783, 788 (8th Cir.2008) (test is “whether these mental impairments caused the defendant’s will to be overborne”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). In the present case, the record overwhelmingly demonstrates that the police were exercising their | o,community caretaking functions in responding to reports of defendant’s erratic driving, and to her unsteady appearance, slurred speech, and the reasonable possibility she was experiencing a drug overdose, when they questioned her and summoned Emergency Medical Services, and that the officers used no coercive measures in securing her statements after advising her of her Miranda rights following the discovery in her car of pill bottles in the name of her friend and former employer (and victim of a homicide). See Cady v. Dombrowski, 413 U.S. 433, 441, 93 S.Ct. 2523, 2528, 37 L.Ed.2d 706 (1973) (“Local police officers, unlike federal officers, frequently investigate vehicle accidents in which there is no claim of criminal liability and engage in what, for want of a better term, may be described as community caretaking functions, totally divorced from the detection, investigation, or acquisition of evidence relating to the violation of a criminal statute.”).

Thus, for due process purposes, defendant’s statements were not involuntary, i.e., they were not the products of a will overborne by police coercion. Nor, in purely statutory terms, were they the product of “fear, duress, intimidation, menaces, threats, inducements or promises.” La. R.S. 15:451. While intoxication remains relevant to the question of whether a Miranda waiver is not only voluntary but also knowing and intelligent, United States v. Cristobal, 293 F.3d 134, 142 (4th Cir.2002) (“Unlike the issue of voluntariness, police overreaching (coercion) is not a prerequisite for finding that a waiver was not knowing and intelligently made.”) (citations omitted), in the present case, we need not resolve the question of whether defendant, who appeared to the officers to understand the explanation of her Miranda rights, made a valid waiver when she continued [4to respond to questioning in a coherent and rational manner although she also appeared heavily “narcot-icized.” Compare State v. Rankin, 357 So.2d 803, 805 (La.1978) (uncontradicted evidence that defendant at the time of arrest was “intoxicated and disoriented, confused and irrational,” made it “clear that defendant was not capable of understanding his Miranda rights and making a free and voluntary confession due to his intoxicated condition.”). The record also indicates that the police did not take defendant into custody for purposes of Miranda, rendering advice of her rights not only precautionary but also necessary, until the officers separated her from the EMS personnel and placed her in a patrol unit after the officer who had initially retrieved the pill bottles went back inside the vehicle and discovered a gun concealed under the driver’s seat of her car. Stansbury v. California, 511 U.S. 318, 322, 114 S.Ct. 1526, 1528-29, 128 L.Ed.2d 293 (1994) (In determining when a person has been taken into custody for purposes of Miranda, “the ultimate inquiry is simply whether there [was] a formal arrest or restraint on freedom of movement of the degree associated with a formal arrest.”) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Investigation of a crime may have begun or intensified the moment the officer initially retrieved the pill bottles from defendant’s car and read their labels, but “[i]t was the compulsive aspect of custodial interrogation, and not the strength or content of the government’s suspicions at the time the questioning was conducted, which led the court to impose the “Miranda requirements with regard to custodial questioning.” Beckwith v. United States, 425 U.S. 341, 346-47, 96 S.Ct. 1612, 1616, 48 L.Ed.2d 1 (1976) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). This Court has consistently held that Miranda warnings are not required when the law officer is making a general, on-thej5eene5 investigation to determine whether there has been the commission of a crime, and, if so, by whom.” State v. Davis, 448 So.2d 645, 651 (La.1984) (citations omitted); see, e.g., State v. Shirley, 08-2106, pp. 8-10 (La.5/5/09), 10 So.3d 224, 229-30 (Miranda warnings not required to admit defendant’s statements following an accident in which she flipped her car and killed her passenger that she did not see a stop sign and had had “two Smirnoffs and two Bud-lights;” “an individual’s responses to on-the-scene and non-custodial questioning, particularly when carried out in public, are admissible without Miranda warnings.”) (citations omitted); cf. Wilson v. Coon, 808 F.2d 688, 690 (8th Cir.1987) (“Detention for a medical examination is not a situation that a reasonable person would find inherently coercive in the sense required by Miranda.”). A valid waiver of Miranda rights is thus not a prerequisite for admitting defendants otherwise voluntary statements into evidence in the present case.

Reversed and remanded.


text:
    In re Tyler P. GRAY.
    No. 2012-OB-0151.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 30, 2012.
   ON APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION TO THE BAR

PER CURIAM.

| [After reviewing the evidence and considering the law, we conclude petitioner, Tyler P. Gray, is eligible to be conditionally admitted to the practice of law in Louisiana, subject to the following conditions:

1. Petitioner must execute a new five-year recovery agreement with the Lawyers Assistance Program (LAP).

2. The period of this conditional admission shall coincide with the period of petitioner’s LAP agreement. However, petitioner’s conditional admission status shall not be terminated until this court so orders.

3. Petitioner shall be responsible for ensuring that monthly reports of his progress and participation in LAP are forwarded to the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC).

4. Upon the expiration of the term of petitioner’s LAP agreement, the Executive Director of LAP shall forward to the ODC (a) a final report of petitioner’s progress and participation in LAP, and (b) a recommendation regarding the need for petitioner’s continued participation in LAP.

5.Following receipt of the report from LAP, the ODC shall file a report in this court in which it shall recommend whether the conditional admission shall be allowed to terminate or shall be extended.

|¾6. Petitioner shall cooperate with LAP and the ODC, and shall comply with any and all requirements imposed upon him by LAP and the ODC.

Should petitioner fail to make a good faith effort to satisfy these conditions, or should he commit any misconduct during the period of probation, his conditional right to practice may be terminated or he may be subjected to other discipline pursuant to the Rules for Lawyer Disciplinary Enforcement.

CONDITIONAL ADMISSION GRANTED.

       Chief Justice Kimball not participating in the opinion.


text:
    In re Nathan G. ORF.
    No. 2012-OB-0099.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 30, 2012.
   ON APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION TO THE BAR

PER CURIAM.

11 After reviewing the evidence and considering the law, we conclude petitioner, Nathan G. Orf, is immediately eligible to be conditionally admitted to the practice of law in Louisiana, subject to a probationary period of five years. The probationary period shall commence from the date petitioner, the Office of Disciplinary Counsel, and the probation monitor execute a formal probation plan. During the probationary period, petitioner shall comply with all of the terms and conditions of the consent agreement executed by him with the Louisiana Supreme Court Committee on Bar Admissions, and such other conditions as may be imposed upon him by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel. Should petitioner fail to make a good faith effort to satisfy these conditions, or should he commit any misconduct during the period of probation, his conditional right to practice may be terminated or he may be subjected to other discipline pursuant to the Rules for Lawyer Disciplinary Enforcement.

CONDITIONAL ADMISSION GRANTED.

      Chief Justice Kimball not participating in the opinion.


text:
    In re Zachary T. JONES.
    No. 2012-OB-0098.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 30, 2012.
   ON APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION TO THE BAR

PER CURIAM.

1 , After reviewing the evidence and considering the law, we conclude petitioner, Zachary T. Jones, is immediately eligible to be conditionally admitted to the practice of law in Louisiana, subject to a probationary period of two years. The probationary period shall commence from the date petitioner, the Office of Disciplinary Counsel, and the probation monitor execute a formal probation plan. During the probationary period, petitioner shall comply with all of the terms and conditions of the consent agreement executed by him with the Louisiana Supreme Court Committee on Bar Admissions, and such other conditions as may be imposed upon him by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel. Should petitioner fail to make a good faith effort to satisfy these conditions, or should he commit any misconduct during the period of probation, his conditional right to practice may be terminated or he may be subjected to other discipline pursuant to the Rules for Lawyer Disciplinary Enforcement.

CONDITIONAL ADMISSION GRANTED.

       Chief Justice Kimball not participating in the opinion.


text:
    In re John Benjamin AVIN.
    No. 2011-OB-2206.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 30, 2012.
   ON APPLICATION FOR REHEARING

PER CURIAM

| Rehearing is granted and the judgment of October 18, 2011 granting conditional admission to petitioner, John Benjamin Avin, be and hereby is vacated. Petitioner may not re-apply for admission until he can demonstrate at least a one-year period of sobriety and compliance with the terms and conditions of his contract with the Lawyers Assistance Program.

       Chief Justice Kimball not participating in the opinion.


text:
    STATE in the Interest of G.P. and G.P. Jr.
    No. 2012-CJ-162.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 24, 2012.
   In re G.P., G.P. Jr., G.P. Sr.; — Other; Applying for Reconsideration of this Court’s Order dated February 3, 2012; Parish of Orleans; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit No. 2011-C-1557; Orleans Parish Juvenile Court, No. TR-D-20050083.

Not considered. See Supreme Court Rule IX, Section 6.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana in the Interest of G.P. and G.P., Jr.
    No. 2012-CJ-0404.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 24, 2012.
   In re Louisiana Department of Children and Family Services; — Other; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Orleans Parish Juvenile Court, No. TR-D-20050083; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 12-C-0102.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Juan SMITH.
    No. 2012-KD-0365.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 27, 2012.
   In re Department of Public Safety and Corrections; Gusman Sheriff, Marlin N.; State of Louisiana; — Other(s); Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. D, No. 378-343; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2012-K-0183.

Stay denied; writ denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Paris SUMAS.
    No. 2012-KD-0457.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 27, 2012.
   In re State of Louisiana; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. C, No. 509-696; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2012-K-250.

Stay denied; writ denied.

VICTORY, J., would grant.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Derrick MAISE.
    No. 2012-KK-0351.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 29, 2012.
   In re Maise, Derrick; — -Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs,-Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. H, No. 505742; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No: 2011 KW 2424.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Darryl SPILLER.
    No. 2012-KK-0476.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 29, 2012.
   In re State of Louisiana; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. A, No. 508-545; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2012-K-0179.

Denied.

GUIDRY, J., would grant.


text:
    In re Philip LAWRENCE.
    No. 2012-OB-0056.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 2, 2012.
   In re Lawrence, Philip; — Plaintiff; Applying For Reinstatement Office of Disciplinary Board, No. 09-DB-076.

Petition for reinstatement denied. Petitioner may not reapply for reinstatement until at least one year has passed from the date of this judgment. Supreme Court Rule XIX, Section 24(1).


text:
    In re Appeal of the Decision of the DISCIPLINARY BOARD NO. 11-ADMIN-765.
    No. 2012-OB-0045.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 2, 2012.
   In re Monroe, Phillip J.; — Plaintiff; Applying For Appeal of the Decision of the Disciplinary Board Office of Disciplinary Board, No. ll-ADMIN-765.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Carlton TURNER.
    No. 2011-KP-1585.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 2, 2012.
   In re Turner, Carlton; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Grant, 35th Judicial District Court Div. O, No. 95-140; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KW 10-01079.

Not considered. Untimely.


text:
    Willie BELL, Jr. v. Michael A. BELL, Jr. and Gerard (Girod) A. Bell.
    No. 2011-OC-2846.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 2, 2012.
   In re Bell, Gerard (Girod); — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Ascension, 23rd Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 89431; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2011 CA 0245.

Not Considered. Not timely filed. See Supreme Court Rule X § 5.


text:
    Larry WAGONER, et al. v. CHEVRON USA INC., et al.
    No. 2010-C-2773.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 2, 2012.
   In re Wagoner Sr., Russell G.; Wagoner, Angela C.; Wagoner, Ivie; Wagoner, Jean; Wagoner, Larry et al.; Wagoner, Roy; — Plaintiff(s); Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Ten-sas, 6th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 22,506; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 45,507-CA.

Denied.

JOHNSON and WEIMER, JJ., would grant.

KNOLL, J., recused.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Aaron JONES v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2011-KH-0399.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 2, 2012.
   In re Jones, Aaron; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. B, No. 408-533; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2011-K-0067.

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:
    Thomas BILLARD v. Rhonda KLING, Record Analysis, et al.
    No. 2011-CI-0406.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 2, 2012.
   In re Billard, Thomas; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. M, No. 553,-285; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 CA 0352.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Saunders HILLS v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2011-KH-0407.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 2, 2012.
   In re Hills, Saunders; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Divs. A, G, D, Nos. 313-376, 345-909, 357-950; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2011-K-0062.

Denied. See State ex rel. Brown v. State, 03-2568, (La.3/26/04), 870 So.2d 976; State ex rel. Degreat v. State, 98-0690 (La.7/2/98), 724 So.2d 205; State ex rel. Fleury v. State, 93-2898 (La.10/13/95), 661 So.2d 488.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Gary JUENGAIN v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2011-KH-0434.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 2, 2012.
   In re Juengain, Gary; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. F, No. 479-222; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2011-K-0014.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Felton Wayne DUKES v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2011-KH-0443.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 2, 2012.
   In re Dukes, Felton Wayne; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedíal Writs, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Div. 5, No. 277,002; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 46,-029-KA.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Jerome JOSEPH v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2011-KH-0444.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 2, 2012.
   In re Joseph, Jerome; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. D, No. 385-502; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2011-K-0112.

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


text:
    John OLESZKOWICZ v. EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION, Exxon Mobil Oil Corporation, Humble Incorporated and Intracoastal Tubular Services, Inc.
    No. 2012-CC-0469.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 2, 2012.
   In re Intracoastal Tubular Services, Inc.; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. G, No. 695-645; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 12-C-51.

Stay denied; writ denied.


text:
    John OLESZKOWICZ v. EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION, Exxon Mobil Oil Corporation, Humble Incorporated, and Intracoastal Tubular Service, Inc.
    No. 2012-CC-0471.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 2, 2012.
   In re Exxon Mobil Corporation; Exxon Mobil Oil Corporation; Humble Incorporated; — Defendant(s); Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. G, No. 695-645; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 12-C-24.

Stay denied; writ denied


text:
    STATE ex rel. Ezekiel TOUSSAINT v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2011-KH-0479.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 2, 2012.
   In re Toussaint, Ezekiel; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. J, No. 05-2235; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 10-KH-914.

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. Frank MILLSAP, Jr. v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2011-KH-0482.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 2, 2012.
   In re Millsap Jr., Frank; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of West Feliciana, 20th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 07-WCR-173; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2007 CW 1040.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Derrick Dewayne DAVIS v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2011-KH-0483.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 2, 2012.
   In re Davis, Derrick Dewayne; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Rapides, 9th Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 277,943; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KH 10-00828.

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


text:
    STATE ex rel. Roderick JACKSON v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2011-KH-0518.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 2, 2012.
   In re Jackson, Roderick; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. G, No. 389744; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 KW 2010.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Darrin D. GILMER v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2011-KH-0519.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 2, 2012.
   In re Gilmer, Darrin D.; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Div. 1, No. 152,894; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 46,-207-KH.

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


text:
    STATE ex rel. Ardic Brian FIELDS v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2011-KH-0520.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 2, 2012.
   In re Fields, Ardic Brian; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Div. 4, No. 212,841; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 46,-288-KH.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Milton BILLIOT v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2011-KH-0531.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 2, 2012.
   In re Billiot, Milton; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Lafourche, 17th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 211018;' to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 KW 2048.

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

WEIMER, J., recused.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Leonard GRAVES v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2011-KH-0536.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 2, 2012.
   In re Graves, Leonard; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 98-1295; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 08-WR-1092.

Denied.

GUIDRY, J., recused.


text:
    Eugene MOORE v. Jennifer ALLEMOND, Allen Corr. Center, Tracy Dibenedetto (DPSC), Linda Ramsey (DPSC), Marie Campell (DPSC), Louisiana Dept. of Corrections.
    No. 2011-CI-0540.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 2, 2012.
   In re Moore, Eugene; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. 0, No. 586,473; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 CA 1475.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Louie M. SCHEXNAYDER v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2011-KH-0541.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 2, 2012.
   In re Sehexnayder, Louie; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. L, No. 94-6099; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, Nos.' 08-WR-915, 09-KH-159.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Troy McCLOUD v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2011-KH-0586.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 2, 2012.
   In re McCloud, Troy; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. I, No. 02-6326; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 10-KH-1004.

Denied.


text:
    Lugene MILTON v. Brenda ACKLIN, Record Custodian David Wade Correctional Center and James LeBlanc, Secretary, Louisiana Department of Public Safety & Corrections.
    No. 2011-CI-0588.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 2, 2012.
   In re Milton, Lugene; — Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 574,650; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 CA 1162.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Warren E. JOSEPH, Jr. v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2011-KH-0589.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 2, 2012.
   In re Joseph Jr., Warren E.; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Lafourche, 17th Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 248,207; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 KW 2378.

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

WEIMER, J., recused.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Corey OLIPHANT v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2011-KH-0592.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 2, 2012.
   In re Oliphant, Corey; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Natchitoches, 10th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. C-9650; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KH 10-00585.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Leonetti LAWSON v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2011-KH-0616.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 2, 2012.
   In re Lawson, Leonetti; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. O, No. 03-4142; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 11-KH-179.

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. Vester JOHNSON v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2011-KH-0617.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 2, 2012.
   In re Johnson, Vester; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Red River, 39th Judicial District Court Div. O, No. 101994; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 46371-KH.

Denied. Moot. The district court has acted.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Jesse D. ENGLETON v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2011-KH-0623.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 2, 2012.
   In re Engleton, Jesse D.; — -Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Mary, 16th Judicial District Court Div. B, Nos. 05-167,059,10-188,028; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 KW 2096.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Devon ALLEN v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2011-KH-0641.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 2, 2012.
   In re Allen, Devon; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 07-6786; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 10-KA-430.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Kevin GOLDSTON v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2011-KH-0643.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 2, 2012.
   In re Goldston, Kevin; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. K, No. 430-300; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2011-K-0111.

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


text:
    STATE ex rel. Samuel MEYERS. v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2011-KH-0651.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 2, 2012.
   In re Meyers, Samuel; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 98^4518; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 11-KH-167.

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


text:
    STATE ex rel. Ernest Keith HAZLETON v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2011-KH-0652.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 2, 2012.
   In re Hazleton, Ernest Keith; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Terrebonne, 32nd Judicial District Court Div. A, Nos. 532940, 558089; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 KA 1220.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Almetric DEBROW v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2011-KH-0658.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 2, 2012.
   In re Debrow, Almetric; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Div. 4, No. 187788; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 46,-316-KH.

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


text:
    STATE ex rel. Mary ULOHO v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2011-KH-0659.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 2, 2012.
   In re Uloho, Mary; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 01-1827; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. ll-KH-42.

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. Cf. La. C.Cr.P. art. 930.4(A).

GUIDRY, J., recused.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Larry SHELBY v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2011-KH-0660.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 2, 2012.
   In re Shelby, Larry; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. I, No. 400-013; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2011-K-0203.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Arthur Ray ROBINSON v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2011-KH-0668.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 2, 2012.
   In re Robinson, Arthur Ray; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Div. 4, No. 184,910; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 46,-330-KH.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Frankie MORRISON v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2011-KH-0669.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 2, 2012.
   In re Morrison, Frankie; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 96-1088; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 11-KH-70.

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. A.J. FREEMAN v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2011-KH-0670.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 2, 2012.
   In re Freeman, A.J.; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 86-229; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 08-WR-1067.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Eugene FRAZIER, Jr. v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2011-KH-0693.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 2, 2012.
   In re Frazier Jr., Eugene; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Sabine, 11th Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 49,586; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KH 10-00874.

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 of Louisiana v. Kurt BAGGS.
    No. 2011-KP-1191.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 2, 2012.
   In re Baggs, Kurt; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. B, Nos. 403896, 425694; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2011 KW 0368.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Isaac JONES.
    No. 2011-KP-1301.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 2, 2012.
   In re Jones, Isaac; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. F, No. 07-4622; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 11-KH-406.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Aaron C. WILSON.
    No. 2011-KP-1450.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 2, 2012.
   In re Wilson, Aaron C.; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 213,012; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 46662-KW.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Jessie GRACE.
    No. 2011-KP-1664.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 2, 2012.
   In re Grace, Jessie; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. P, No. 93-1315; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 11-KH-551.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Alonzo HAYES.
    No. 2011-K-2144.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 2, 2012.
   In re Hayes, Alonzo; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. K, No. 497-776; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2010-KA-1538.

Denied.

WEIMER, J., would grant.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Timmy Anthony BRADLEY, Sr.
    No. 2011-K-2259.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 2, 2012.
   In re Bradley Sr., Timmy Anthony;— Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certio-rari and/or Review, Parish of Terrebonne, 32nd Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 546,356; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2011 KA 0300.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Larry Lionell CLARK, II.
    No. 2011-K-2261.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 2, 2012.
   In re Clark II, Larry Lionell; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. J, No. 11-06-0398; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2011 KA 0328.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Kaderious C. LEE.
    No. 2011-KO-2284.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 2, 2012.
   In re Lee, Kaderious C.; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Iberville, 18th Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 1547-07; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2011 KA 0362.

Denied.


text:
    Tammy Rena THORNTON and Tommy Wayne Thornton v. CBS CORPORATION, et al.
    No. 2011-CC-2538.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 2, 2012.
   In re Thornton, Tammy Rena et al.; Thornton, Tommy Wayne; — Plain tiff(s); Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. O, No. 576,756; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2011 CW 1345;

Denied.

JOHNSON and KNOLL, JJ., would grant.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Ciara CRAIG.
    No. 2011-KK-2584.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 2, 2012.
   In re State of Louisiana; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. G, No. 09-936; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 11-KH-348.

Denied.


text:
    Manuel TORRES v. Nancy Ivette TORRES.
    No. 2011-C-2591.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 2, 2012.
   In re Torres, Manuel; — Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. L, No. 541-193; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. ll-CA-156.

Denied.


text:
    BASELINE CONSTRUCTION & RESTORATION OF LOUISIANA, L.L.C. v. FAVROT REALTY PARTNERSHIP, et al.
    No. 2011-CC-2592.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 2, 2012.
   In re Baseline Construction & Restoration of Louisiana, L.L.C.; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. B, No. 2007-6429; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2011-C-1229.

Denied.


text:
    BASELINE CONSTRUCTION & RESTORATION OF LOUISIANA, L.L.C. v. FAVROT REALTY PARTNERSHIP, et al.
    No. 2011-CC-2593.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 2, 2012.
   In re Baseline Construction & Restoration of Louisiana, L.L.C.; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. B, No. 2007-6429; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2011-C-1230.

Denied.


text:
    BASELINE CONSTRUCTION & RESTORATION OF LOUISIANA, L.L.C. v. FAVROT REALTY PARTNERSHIP, et al.
    No. 2011-CC-2606.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 2, 2012.
   In re CDJ Apartments, L.L.C.; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. B, No. 2007-6429; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2011-C-1229.

Denied.


text:
    UTELCOM, INC. and UCOM, Inc. v. Cynthia BRIDGES, in her Capacity as Secretary of the Department of Revenue, State of Louisiana.
    No. 2011-C-2632.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 2, 2012.
   In re Cynthia Bridges, In Her Capacity as Secretary of the Louisiana Department of Revenue; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 535,407; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 CA 0654. Denied.

JOHNSON and GUIDRY, JJ., would grant.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Charles FRANKLIN.
    No. 2012-KK-0222.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 7, 2012.
   In re Franklin, Charles; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. D, No. 496-305; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Nos. 2011-K-1664, 2011-K-1665.

Stay denied; writ denied.


text:
    Terry CAMPBELL, Individually and on Behalf of all those Similarly Situated Tax Payers v. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS FOR the AMITE RIVER BASIN DRAINAGE AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT, et al.
    No. 2012-CC-0268.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 7, 2012.
   In re Sheriff of Livingston Parish;— Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. O, No. 597072; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2011 CW 2137.

Stay Denied. Writ Denied.


text:
    Terry CAMPBELL, individually and on Behalf of all those Similarly Situated Tax Payers v. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS FOR the AMITE RIVER BASIN DRAINAGE AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT, et al.
    No. 2012-CC-0272.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 7, 2012.
   In re Assessor of Ascension Parish; Sheriff of Ascension Parish; — Defendants); Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. 0, No. 597072; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2011 CW 2146.

Stay Denied. Writ Denied


text:
    Terry CAMPBELL, Individually and on Behalf of all those Similarly Situated Tax Payers v. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS FOR the AMITE RIVER BASIN DRAINAGE AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT, et al.
    No. 2012-CC-0281.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 7, 2012.
   In re Board of Commissioners for the Amite River Basin Drainage and Water Conservation District, et al.; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. O, No. 597072; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2011 CW 2141.

Stay Denied. Writ Denied.


text:
    Terry CAMPBELL, Individually and on Behalf of all those Similarly Situated Tax Payers v. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS FOR the AMITE RIVER BASIN DRAINAGE AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT, et al.
    No. 2012-CC-0298.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 7, 2012.
   In re Sheriff of East Baton Rouge Parish; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. O, No. 597072; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2011 CW 2146.

Stay Denied. Writ Denied.


text:
    Beryle James PATIN v. STATE of Louisiana, through DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Louisiana Attorney General’s Office.
    No. 2012-CC-0512.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 7, 2012.
   In re State of Louisiana, through Department of Justice, Louisiana Attorney General’s Office; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 551-419; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2011 CW 1968.

Stay denied; writ denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana in the Interest of the Minor Child C.A.C.
    No. 2012-CJ-0388.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 7, 2012.
   In re C., C.A.; Department of Children and Family Services; — Other(s); Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of St. Bernard, 34th Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 21-364-J; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2011-CA-1315.

Denied.


text:
    Perry M. WESTBROOK v. Katherine Broussard WEIBEL.
    No. 2012-CJ-0403.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 7, 2012.
   In re Westbrook, Perry M.; — Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Vernon, 30th Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 76,916; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 11-910 CA.

Denied.


text:
    Richard L. GILL v. Gabrielle A. BENNETT & Laurie Bridges.
    No. 2012-CJ-0416.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 7, 2012.
   In re Bridges, Laurie; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Vernon, 30th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 80,972-A; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 11-886.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Brandon McELVEEN & Raymond McElveen.
    No. 2012-KK-0435.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 7, 2012.
   In re State of Louisiana; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. D, No. 486-418; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2012-K-0045.

Denied.

CLARK, J., would grant.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Carl PRIMAS.
    No. 2012-KK-0436.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 7, 2012.
   In re State of Louisiana; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. J, No. 502-553; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2011-K-1775.

Denied.

CLARK, J., would grant.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Frank DANIELS.
    No. 2012-KK-0511.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 7, 2012.
   In re Daniels, Frank; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. C, No. 492-471; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2012-K-0016.

Denied.

WEIMER, J., would grant.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Franklin MEREDITH, Jr.
    No. 2012-KK-0258.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 9, 2012.
   In re State of Louisiana; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. G, No. 07-10-0442; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2011 KW 1966.

Denied.

GUIDRY and CLARK, JJ., would grant.


text:
    Donald BRUNT v. Lisa Ostic ABERNATHY.
    No. 2012-CJ-0265.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 9, 2012.
   In re Brunt, Donald; — Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Vernon, 30th Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 83639; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 11-705.

Denied.


text:
    In re Appeal of the Decision of the DISCIPLINARY BOARD NO. 11-PDB-056.
    No. 2012-OB-0167.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 9, 2012.
   In re Carter Jr., Arthur; — Plaintiff; Applying For Appeal of the Decision of the Disciplinary Board Office of Disciplinary Board, No. ll-PDB-056.

Not considered, not timely filed.


text:
    In re Appeal of the Decision of the DISCIPLINARY BOARD NO. 11-PDB-086.
    No. 2012-OB-0324.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 9, 2012.
   In re Doucet, John B.; — Plaintiff; Applying For Appeal of the Decision of the Disciplinary Board Office of Disciplinary Board, No. ll-PDB-086.

Leave to appeal denied.


text:
    Vinod MISTRY & Natila Mistry v. DESAI HOLDINGS, LLC.
    No. 2012-CC-0082.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 9, 2012.
   In re Lad, Atul; — Third Party; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. O, No. 673-592; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 11-C-944.

Not Considered. Not Timely Filed.


text:
    Vinod MISTRY & Natila Mistry v. DESAI HOLDINGS, LLC.
    No. 2012-CC-0203.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 9, 2012.
   In re Magee, William M.; — Third Party; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. O, No. 673-592; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 11-C-928.

Not Considered. Not Timely Filed.


text:
    Beverly A. BLAKE, Jamarcus Blake and Natasha Valley v. Dr. Warren MALEY. Medical Malpractice Matter of Barry Blake (D) PCF No. 2009-01115.
    No. 2011-C-0602.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 9, 2012.
   In re Blake, Beverly A.; — Plaintiff; Applying for Reconsideration of this Court’s action dated April 29, 2011; Parish of Cad-do, 1st Judicial District Court Div. C, Nos. 535,808-C, 536-673; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, Nos. 46,036-CA, 46,-037-CA.

Not considered. See Louisiana Supreme Court Rule IX, Section 6.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Kirt K. HALL v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2010-KH-2469.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 9, 2012.
   In re Hall, Kirt K.; Plaintiff; Applying for Reconsideration of this Court’s action dated November 4, 2011; Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. K, No. 02-92-1099; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2010 KW 1327.

Reconsideration denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Terrence K. BENOIT v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2010-KH-2539.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 9, 2012.
   In re Benoit, Terrence K.; — Plaintiff; Applying for Reconsideration of this Court’s Action dated November 4, 2011; Parish of Iberia, 16th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. CR-04-1005; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 10-01037 KH.

Reconsideration denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Steven A. WHITLOCK v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2010-KH-2456.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 9, 2012.
   In re Whitlock, Steven A.; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Ouachita, 4th Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 03-F-2142; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 45,935-KH.

Denied.

WEIMER, J., would grant.


text:
    Del Dean DAVID et ux. v. VELSICOL CHEM. CORP. Wilhelm v. Mosaic Global Operations.
    No. 2010-C-2636.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 9, 2012.
   In re Glaxosmith Kline; Smithkline Beecham Corporation d/b/a; — —Defendants); Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Vermilion, 15th Judicial District Court Div. L, Nos. 82490-L, 84514 I; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Nos. 09-1237, 09-1239.

Denied. Adequate remedy on appeal.

VICTORY and CLARK, JJ., would £rant-


text:
    STATE ex rel. Geoffrey EASON v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2011-KH-0694.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 9, 2012.
   In re Eason, Geoffrey; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Webster, 26th Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 73134; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 46,-421-KH.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Roland Joseph PELTIER, Jr. v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2011-KH-0696.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 9, 2012.
   In re Peltier Jr., Roland Joseph; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Lafayette, 15th Judicial District Court Div. K, No. CR-95374; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KH 10-00664.

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


text:
    Timothy Hugh QUEEN v. O.S. NUGENT, Asst. Warden. Timothy Hugh Queen v. Jeffrey Miller, Asst. Warden. Timothy Hugh Queen v. O.S. Nugent, Asst. Warden.
    No. 2011-CI-0724.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 9, 2012.
   In re Queen, Timothy Hugh; — Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Calcasieu, 14th Judicial District Court Div. H, Nos. 2009-6080, 2010-26, 2010-65; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Nos. 10-1130, 10-1131, 10-1132.

Denied.

KNOLL, J., would grant.


text:
    Joseph V. FOSTER v. LOUISIANA DEPT. OF PUBLIC SAFETY & CORRECTIONS, and David Wade Correctional Center.
    No. 2011-CI-0800.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 9, 2012.
   In re Foster, Joseph V.; — Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. O, No. 588,308; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 CA1624.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. David Wayne POYDRAS v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2011-KH-0825.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 9, 2012.
   In re Poydras, David Wayne; — -Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Lafayette, 15th Judicial District Court Div. J, No. 52685; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KH 10-00685.

Denied. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8; State ex rel. Glover v. State, 93-2330 (La.9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189. See also State ex rel. Fleury v. State, 93-2898 (La.10/13/95), 661 So.2d 488.

KNOLL, J., recused.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Samuel ROSS v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2011-KH-0826.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 9, 2012.
   In re Ross, Samuel; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 08-3941; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 11-KH-22.

Denied.

GUIDRY, J., recused.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Donald L. WILLIAMS, Jr. v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2011-KH-0827.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 9, 2012.
   In re Williams Jr., Donald L.; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 196429; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 KW 2155.

Denied.