author: GUIDRY, Justice. WEIMER, J., HUGHES, J.,

text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. I.C.S. State of Louisiana v. C.M.S.
    No. 2013-CK-1023.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    July 1, 2014.
   GUIDRY, Justice.

_JjWe granted the writ application in this matter to determine whether the district court properly ordered the defendants to register as sex offenders pursuant to La. Rev.Stat. 15:542(A). The more precise question presented is whether the defendants, who, as adults, entered pleas of guilty to the charge of indecent behavior with a juvenile for conduct that occurred when the defendants were themselves under the age of 14 years old, must register as sex offenders under the statute even though they would not have been required to register as such had they entered guilty pleas as juveniles in juvenile court at the time they committed the offenses. For the reasons set forth below, we find under the plain language of the statute that the defendants qualify as “[a]ny ’adult residing in this state who has pled guilty to ... a sex offense as defined in R.S. 15:541 ...” and, therefore, must register as sex offenders pursuant to La.Rev.Stat. 15:542(A)(1).

| .FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The charges arose out of conduct committed by the defendant brothers sometime in January of 2004 upon R.A.S., then age 5, and A.R.S., then age 7 or 8. At that time, C.M.S. was 12 years of age and I.C.S. was 13 years of age. The offenses were ultimately reported by the victims over 7 years later, at which time both defendants were adults. In July of 2011, C.M.S. was indicted on two counts of aggravated rape by a Bossier Parish grand jury, while I.C.S. was charged by bill of information with one count of indecent behavior with a juvenile. The defendants were prosecuted in adult criminal court pursuant to Children’s Code Article 857(C)(2). In January of 2012, pursuant to an agreement with the State, C.M.S, then age 20, and I.C.S., then age 21,- entered pleas of guilty to one count each of indecent behavior with a juvenile, a violation of La.Rev.Stat. 14:81.

In May of 2012, the district court sentenced C.M.S. to serve five years imprisonment at hard labor, suspended, and placed him on active supervised probation for three years with special conditions, including no contact with the |svictims’ immediate family. The district court sentenced 1.C.S. to serve three years imprisonment at hard labor, suspended, and placed him on active supervised probation for three years with the same special conditions. The district court further ordered both defendants to register as sex offenders for fifteen years pursuant to La.Rev.Stat. 15:542.

On appeal, the defendants asserted they could not be required to register as sex offenders because they were juveniles themselves at the time they committed the offenses. They based their argument on the fact that, had these offenses been discovered and prosecuted when they were still juveniles, their cases could not have been transferred to adult court, because each was under the age of 14 years old when the crimes occurred and because the crime of indecent behavior with a juvenile is not one of the seven crimes for which a child 14 years or older may be tried in adult court. See La.Rev.Stat. 15:542(A)(2) and (3). The defendants maintained that the sex offender registration requirement does not apply to any child under the age of 14 years at the time of the offense. They thus argued that the age of the offender at the time of the commission of the offense therefore determines whether the offender must register as a sex offender.

The court of appeal majority affirmed the district court’s judgment ordering the defendants to register as sex offenders. State v. I.C.S. c/w State v. C.M.S., Nos. 47,829 and 47,830 (La.App. 2 Cir. 2/27/13), 110 So.3d 1208. The majority rejected the defendants’ contention that they could not be required to register as sex offenders because they were juveniles at the time they committed the offenses. The majority interpreted La.Rev.Stat. 15:542(A)(1) as applying to “any adult residing in the state” who has pleaded guilty to one of the enumerated sex offenses regardless of whether the offense was committed when the offender was an adult |4or a juvenile. The appellate court majority recognized that, although La. Child. Code art. 857(C)(2) prohibits the district court from imposing any greater punishment than the defendants could have received in juvenile court, the sex offender registration requirements are not punitive in nature, citing State ex rel. Olivieri v. State, 00-0172 (La.2/22/01), 779 So.2d 735.

The dissenting member of the appellate panel noted that the sex offender registration law specifically provides in La.Rev. Stat. 15:542(A)(2) that it applies to juveniles who commit a sex offense described in Children’s Code articles 305 and 857, which offenses include aggravated and forcible rape, as well as juvenile offenders who commit crimes after reaching age 14. Because the defendants committed indecent behavior with a juvenile, a crime not enumerated in La. Child. Code art. 857, before they reached the age of 14, the dissenting judge reasoned that the sex offender requirements of La.Rev.Stat. 15:542 do not apply.

Because the issue presented is res nova, we granted the defendants’ writ application to review the lower courts’ rulings. State v. I.C.S. c/w State v. C.M.S., 13-1028 (La.2/7/14), 131 So.3d 849.

LAW AND DISCUSSION

The issue before us is purely one of statutory interpretation: Must the defendants register as sex offenders under La.Rev.Stat. 15:542(A)? The | ^principles guiding our interpretation of statutes are well-settled. The starting point in the interpretation of any statute is the language of the statute itself. Cat’s Meow, Inc. v. City of New Orleans, 98-0601, p. 15 (La.10/20/98), 720 So.2d 1186, 1198; Touchard v. Williams, 617 So.2d 885 (La.1993). Legislation is the solemn expression of legislative will, and therefore, the interpretation of a law involves primarily the search for the legislature’s intent. La. Civ.Code art. 2; Landry v. Louisiana Citizens Property Ins. Co., 07-1907, p. 20 (La.05/21/08), 983 So.2d 66, 79; Detillier v. Kenner Regional Med. Ctr., 03-3259, p. 3 (La.7/6/04), 877 So.2d 100, 103. La. Civ. Code art. 9 provides that, when a law is clear and unambiguous, and its application does not lead to absurd consequences, the law shall be applied as written and no further interpretation may be made in search of the intent of the legislature.

However, when the words of a law are ambiguous, their meaning must be sought by examining the context in which they occur and the text of the law as a whole, and laws on the same subject matter must be interpreted in reference to each other. La.Rev.Stat. 1:3; La. Civ.Code arts. 12 and 13; Conerly v. State, 97-0871, p. 4 (La.7/8/98), 714 So.2d 709, 711. Where two statutes deal with the same subject matter, they should be harmonized if possible. La. Civ.Code art. 13; Kennedy v. Kennedy, 96-0741, p. 2 (La.11/25/96), 699 So.2d 351, 358 (on rehearing).

We begin, “as we must, with the language of the statute.” Bailey v. United States, 516 U.S. 137, 144, 116 S.Ct. 501, 506, 133 L.Ed.2d 472 (1995); see also State v. Barbier, 98-2923, p. 3 (La.9/8/99), 743 So.2d 1236, 1238. La.Rev.Stat. 15:542(A), entitled “Registration of sex offenders and child predators,” provides in pertinent part as follows:

LA. The following persons shall be required to register and provide notification as a sex offender or child predator in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter:
(1) Any adult residing in this state who has pled guilty to, has been convicted of, or where adjudication has been deferred or withheld for the perpetration or attempted perpetration of, or any conspiracy to commit either of the following:
(a) A sex offense as defined in R.S. 15:541, with the exception of those convicted of felony carnal knowledge of a juvenile as provided in Subsection F of this Section; ....

La.Rev.Stat. 15:542(A) thus enumerates the persons who must register and provide notification as a sex offender. Those persons include “any adult” residing in this state who has pled guilty to or been convicted of a sex offense as defined in La. Rev.Stat. 15:541. In this case, indecent behavior with juveniles, La.Rev.Stat. 14:81, is a sex offense as defined in La.Rev.Stat. 15:541. See La.Rev.Stat. 15:541(24)(a). Accordingly, on its face, the statute clearly requires these defendants — adults who pleaded guilty to an enumerated sex offense — to register as sex offenders.

The defendants argue that it is the age of the offender at the time of the commission of the offense, rather than the age of the offender at sentencing, that determines which section of the statute applies. The defendants assert that La.Rev.Stat. 15:542(A) narrowly defines who must register to the exclusion of youthful offenders, with certain exceptions. They point out that La.Rev.Stat. 15:542(A)(2) and (3) provide as follows:

(2) Any juvenile who has pled guilty or has been convicted of a sex offense or second degree kidnapping as provided for in Children’s Code Article 305 [addressing crimes committed “when a child is 15 years of age or older at the time of commission ...” and committed aggravated rape and wherein the juvenile court was divested of jurisdiction] or 857 [addressing cases where the offender was “Ik years of age or older at the time of the commission ” and jurisdiction |7was transferred to the criminal court], with the exception of simple rape ...; and
(3) Any juvenile, who has attained the age of fourteen years at the time of commission of the offense, who has been adjudicated delinquent based upon the perpetration, attempted perpetration, or conspiracy to commit any of the following offenses:
(a) Aggravated rape ...,
(b) Forcible rape ...,
(c) Second degree sexual battery ...,
(d) Aggravated kidnapping of a child who has not attained the age of thirteen years ...,
(e) Second degree kidnapping of a child who has not attained the age of thirteen years ...,
(f) Aggravated incest involving circumstances defined as an “aggravated offense” ...,
(g) Aggravated crime against nature .... [Emphasis supplied].

Accordingly, the defendants contend the legislature, by reference to other statutes and by direct statement, has determined that the age of the defendant “at the time of the commission of the offense” controls whether the defendant must register under the statute. They further argue that in no case is sex-offender registration required for a child under the age of 14 years at the time of the commission of the offense. Accordingly, they contend they are not the type of “child predator” envisioned by the legislature as individuals who jeopardize the safety of the public and therefore must register and provide notification as sex offenders under La.Rev.Stat. 15:542(A).

We disagree with the interpretation of the statute advanced by the defendants. La. Child. Code art. 857(C)(2) provides for prosecution of an adult for a non-pre-seribed offense he committed as a child. There is no dispute that Art. |S857(C)(2) applies to the defendants in this case, and that they, accordingly, “shall be prosecuted as an adult in the appropriate court exercising criminal jurisdiction.” La. Child. Code art. (C)(2). Consequently, La. Rev.Stat. 15:542(A), requiring registration and notification, applies to the defendants in this case, because they are adults who, as adults, entered pleas of guilty to a sex offense for which registration is required. Under the plain language of the statute, they are required to register as sex offenders.

While it is true that the statute identifies two particular classes of juvenile offenders who must register, La.Rev.Stat. 15:542(A) is not altogether silent regarding juvenile offenders who are not prosecuted until they become adults under La. Child. Code art. 857(C)(2). We recognize the canon casus omissus pro omisso habendus est, which means that a case omitted is to be held as intentionally omitted. See Si-monton’s Case, 2 Mart, (o.s.) 102 (La.Terr.Super.Orleans 1811) (“This case appears a casus omissus, for which it is not in the power of the court to provide a remedy.”) Under the omitted case canon, a matter omitted from the statute is recognized as such, and no further inquiry need be made into how the legislature would have handled the matter. However, while the legislature arguably could have more specifically addressed eases in which prosecution of child offenders is delayed until adulthood through no fault of the State, we do not view such a situation as necessarily an omitted case, because we interpret the statute to provide a catch-all provision in La.Rev.Stat. 15:542(A) in that registration is required of “any adult residing in the state who has pled guilty to, or been convicted of,” an enumerated offense. Such a general provision is logical because it obviates the potentially difficult task of probing into the cause of the delay in prosecution, and instead rationally applies to the offender as he stands at the time of sentencing.

A. The legislature finds that sex offenders, sexually violent predators, and child predators often pose a high risk of engaging in sex offenses, and crimes against victims who are minors even after being released from incarceration or commitment and that protection of the public from sex offenders, sexually violent predators, and child predators is of paramount governmental interest. The legislature further finds that local law enforcement officers' efforts to protect their communities, conduct investigations, and quickly apprehend offenders who commit sex offenses and crimes against victims who are minors, are impaired by the lack of information available to law enforcement agencies about convicted sex offenders, sexually violent predators, and child predators who live within the agency’s jurisdiction, and the penal and mental health components of our justice system are largely hidden from public view and that lack of information from either may result in failure of both systems to meet this paramount concern of public safety. Restrictive confidentiality and liability laws governing the release of information about sex offenders, sexually violent predators, and child predators have reduced willingness to release information that could be appropriately released under the public disclosure laws, and have increased risks to public safety. Persons found to have committed a sex offense or a crime against a victim who is a minor have a reduced expectation of privacy because of the public’s interest in public safety and in the effective operation of government. Release of information about sex offenders, sexually violent predators, and child predators to public agencies, and under limited circumstances to the general public, will further the governmental interests of public safety and public scrutiny of the criminal and mental health systems so long as the information released is rationally related to the furtherance of those goals.
B. Therefore, this state’s policy is to assist local law enforcement agencies' efforts to protect their communities by requiring sex offenders, sexually violent predators, and child predators to register with state and local law enforcement agencies and to
require the exchange of relevant information about sex offenders, sexually violent predators, and child predators among state, local, and federal public agencies and officials and to authorize the release of necessary and relevant information about sex offenders, sexually violent predators, and child predators to members of the general public as provided in this Chapter.

19Our interpretation is consistent with and supported by the remedial purpose of the sex offender registration and notice law. The purpose of the law is unequivocally set forth in La.Rev.Stat. 15:540, stressing the paramount governmental interest in protecting the community, aiding police in their investigation of sex offenders, enabling quick apprehension of sex offenders, and, ultimately, reducing the risk to public safety posed by sex offenders even after release. The registration requirement is not intended to be punitive, but is instead intended to further the legitimate public purpose of protecting the community. As we explained in Olivieri, 00-0172, pp. 19-20, 779 So.2d at 747:

|inA careful review of the subjective intent enunciated in La.Rev.Stat. § 15:540 shows that the Legislature enacted this state’s Megan’s Laws with an avowedly non-punitive intent. It is clear that the laws were enacted to protect communities, aid police in their investigation of sex offenders, and enable quick apprehension of sex offenders. These enactments were further founded on the findings of the Legislature that this legislation was of paramount governmental interest because: (1) sex offenders pose a high risk of engaging in sex offenses, (2) sex offenders have a high incidence of recidivism, and (3) unless there was registration and community notification, sex offenders could remain hidden and thereby increase the risk to public safety. Accordingly, it is apparent that the intent of the Legislature was to alert the public for the purpose of public safety, a remedial intent, not to punish convicted sex offenders.

We further explained in Olivieri that the requirements of the sex offender registration law do not constitute punishment, but instead they are sentencing consequences as a result of the crime, and, thus, did not violate the ex post facto clause of the federal or state constitutions.

[W]e find that the onus placed upon them by this legislation does not constitute a separate punishment for their offenses. Rather, it is clear that these obligations constitute a condition of their release, respectively, parole and probation, and any costs associated therewith are a necessary part of the regulatory scheme of the legislation in existence at the time of that release. See Bickman v. Dees, 367 So.2d 283 (La.1978). Moreover, we hasten to add that the economically harsh results of this well justified system of public notification is not the result of governmental action, but as a consequence of the sex offenders’ crimes.

00-0172, p. 24, 779 So.2d at 749.

We thus agree with the lower court that remedial legislation, intended to protect the public, is properly assessed as the law exists at the time that the probationary or parole conditions are fixed. Although La. Child. Code art. 857(C)(2) mandates prosecution as an adult, it limits the “confinement” that may be imposed on the offender to the maximum amount he could have been ordered to |nserve had he been adjudicated for the offense as a child at the time the offense was committed. See also La.Code Crim. Proc. art. 876(B). Accordingly, as the lower court acknowledged, if the offender is prosecuted as an adult for a crime committed as a child, the law does take into account his youthful age when he committed the offense and affords him some protections in the form of a maximum amount of confinement. But as we have explained, the sex offender registration and notification requirement is not intended to be punitive; instead, it is remedial legislation intended to protect public safety, and as such “is a corollary of rather than an addendum to the punishment of sex offenders.” Olivieri, 00-0172, p. 22, 779 So.2d at 748. Moreover, it is well-settled that the registration and notification law in effect at the time of either release, see Olivieri,, supra, or sentencing, see State v. Patín, 02-1126 (La.4/9/03), 842 So.2d 322, may apply to the convicted sex offender without violating the ex post facto clauses of the federal and state constitutions. In State v. Pa,tin, we explained that, “[g]iven the remedial purpose of Louisiana’s sex offender registration and notice law in La.Rev.Stat. 15:540^49, the law in effect at the time of sentencing, which eliminated any possibility of waiver for a sex offender, may apply to respondent without violating the ex post facto clause of the federal and state constitutions, although it is more exacting than the law in effect when respondent committed his crime.” 02-1126, p. 5, 842 So.2d at 325.

CONCLUSION

In the instant case, the defendants were properly prosecuted pursuant to La. Child. Code art. 857(C)(2) and La.Code Crim. Proc. art. 876 as adults in a district court exercising criminal jurisdiction for crimes they committed as juveniles. They entered pleas of guilty as adults to indecent behavior with juveniles, a sex offense 112for which registration as a sex offender is required. See La.Rev.Stat. 15:541(24)(a). For the reasons set forth above, we conclude under the plain language of the sex offender and notification statute, La.Rev. Stat. 15:542(A), the defendants meet the requirement of “[a]ny adult residing in this state who has pled guilty to ... a sex offense as defined in R.S. 15:541 ...” and, therefore, must register as sex offenders pursuant to La.Rev.Stat. 15:542(A)(1). Accordingly, the rulings of the lower courts are affirmed.

AFFIRMED

WEIMER, J.,

dissenting.

hThe fundamental question posed is whether one should face adult consequences for offenses committed as a juvenile. An analysis of all relevant statutory provisions, as opposed to singling out one provision, demonstrates the legislature’s intent not to impose adult consequences for certain acts when committed as a juvenile. For the reasons discussed below, I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion.

The legislature’s intent was aptly identified by Judge Caraway, who dissented from the court of appeal’s ruling that a person who, as a juvenile, committed indecent acts with another juvenile and, as an adult, pled guilty to that offense, must register as a sex offender. Judge Caraway observed that the legislature has defined the class of offenders who must register in La. R.S. 15:542 and has specifically addressed offenders whose offenses were committed as juveniles. Under La. R.S. 15:542(A)(2), persons culpable for “a sex offense ... as provided for in Children’s Code Article 305 |2or 857” must register. Judge Caraway further noted, “[t]he only sex offenses listed in the Children’s Code in the cited Articles 305 or 857 are aggravated rape and forcible rape.” Here, neither defendant was convicted of aggravated or forcible rape; the defendants were convicted of indecent behavior with a juvenile. “Rounding out the class of offenders who must register,” as Judge Caraway continued his analysis, “the other provisions of La. R.S. 15:542(A) apply to adults and to other juveniles who commit a crime after attaining the age of fourteen. Here again, neither defendant fits this category; at the time of offense, one defendant was thirteen years old, and the other defendant was twelve years old.

The legislature defined the categories of persons who must register by looking to the time the offense was committed, as Judge Caraway explained. By scribing a detailed listing of juvenile offenses within La. R.S. 15:542(A)(2) and (3), while omitting the particular offense committed by the instant defendants, the “Legislature never intended that a juvenile who commits the crime of indecent behavior with a juvenile have imposed upon him the sex registration requirements extending for 15 years into his adult life.”

To Judge Caraway’s well-reasoned explanation, I would initially add that, because La. R.S. 15:542(A)(2) and (3) specifically address offenses committed while the offender was a juvenile, those provisions trump the more general provision of La. R.S. 15:542(A)(1) (requiring convicted adults to register). See Medine v. Roniger, 03-3436, p. 11 (La.7/2/04), 879 So.2d 706, 714 (ruling that “where two statutory provisions are in conflict, the statute that is more specific must prevail as an | sexception to the general statute.”). Additionally, because the legislature has specifically listed within La. R.S. 15:542(A)(2) and (3) certain offenses requiring registration when committed while a juvenile and has omitted indecent behavior with a juvenile when committed as a juvenile from that list, “the time honored maxim, expres-sio unius et exclusio alterius ” applies. See Sensebe v. Canal Indent. Co., 10-0703, p. 16 (La.1/28/11), 58 So.3d 441, 451. That maxim “teaches us that when the legislature specifically enumerates a series of things, the legislature’s omission of other items, which could have been easily included in the statute, is deemed intentional.” Id., quoting Theriot v. Midland Risk Ins. Co., 95-2895, p. 4 (La.5/20/97), 694 So.2d 184,187.

However, it is the general statutory provision, La. R.S. 15:542(A)(1), on which the majority here relies, contravening these and other principles of statutory interpretation: “the paramount consideration in statutory interpretation is ascertainment of the legislative intent and the reason or reasons which prompted the legislature to enact the law,” and that “the legislature is ... presumed to have enacted a statute in light of preceding statutes involving the same subject matter and decisions eonstru-ing such statutes.” (Internal quotation marks and citation omitted.) The sex offender registry was enacted against a historic backdrop by which the judicial |4consequences of actions committed as a juvenile are screened from being carried forward into adulthood, absent a contrary expression of legislative intent. This principle is recognized in the Louisiana Constitution, as well as in a plethora of laws. The majority’s ruling now undermines the traditional separation of juvenile offenses from adult offenses and sidesteps the authorities supporting this separation.

For example, La. Const, art. V,- § 19 establishes the general rule that “[t]he determination of guilt or innocence, the detention, and the custody of a person who is alleged to have committed a crime prior to his seventeenth birthday shall be pursuant to special juvenile proceedings.” This general rule allows, however, for the legislature to enact by supermajority of each house that “special juvenile procedures shall not apply to juveniles” for crimes such as “first or second degree murder.” In other words — and as a general rule— unless the legislature decides otherwise, certain juvenile offenses do not continue to burden one far into adulthood. For those offenses listed in La. Const, art. V, § 19, the legislature can provide that juveniles be subjected to adult consequences, and has passed such legislation. Although the list of offenses includes aggravated and forcible rape, it does not include indecent behavior with a juvenile. Thus, for indecent behavior with a juvenile, when committed as a juvenile, the wall of separation between juvenile and adult consequences remains.

|fiOne consequence of this wall of separation between juvenile and adult offenses is that, with certain exceptions, a juvenile court adjudication for committing the indecent acts with a juvenile, when committed as a juvenile, is a non-public record required to be kept confidential. See La. Ch.C. art. 412(A) and (G). In contrast, the very reason the sex offender registration exists is to make public the fact that an offender has committed certain acts. See La. R.S. 15:540 (reciting the legislature’s findings, including that the “[rjelease of information about sex offenders, sexually violent predators, and child predators to public agencies, and under limited circumstances to the general public, will further ... public safety ... so long as the information released is rationally related to the furtherance of those goals.”). Given the wall of separation that existed long before the enactment of the sex offender registry laws in 1992, and because the legislature is presumed to be aware of, and to act in harmony with, existing law, I find the legislature’s omission from La. R.S. 15:542(A) of indecent behavior with a juvenile when the offender is a juvenile reflects a legislative intent not to require registration for such an offense.

It is tempting to conclude that the state here might have entirely avoided the wall of separation between juvenile and adult consequences by prosecuting more serious charges, rather than pleading out both matters as indecent behavior with a juvenile. However, these are juvenile offenders, not adult offenders, who, because of the fact of delayed disclosure of their offenses, pled as adults. The offenders | (¡admitted their guilt for offenses committed as juveniles under the age of fourteen; there is no evidence whatsoever of any offenses beyond them youth. Even so, the majority has read the adult registration requirement in isolation and without regard to the more specific registration requirements related to juvenile offenders and has erroneously imposed adult sentencing consequences for offenses committed as juveniles where the legislature has not chosen to do so.

Aside from reading the adult registration requirement in isolation, the majority avoids the result compelled by other longstanding principles of statutory interpretation. While noting La. C.C. art. 9 mandates that a law cannot be applied in a manner leading to absurd consequences, the majority has apparently overlooked the incongruous effects of its ruling.

For instance, random or arbitrary factors could change the result. A delay in reporting an indecent act, or a delay in prosecuting an indecent act, could spell the difference between the imposition or non-imposition of a reporting requirement. As long as the offender’s eighteenth birthday has been passed, under the majority’s ruling, a person, who as a juvenile has committed an indecent act with a juvenile and has been convicted by an adult court, must register. See La. R.S. 15:542(A)(1). Oddly, and further revealing the arbitrary effects of the majority’s ruling, if adjudicated a delinquent by a juvenile court, the same adult is not required to register, unless “adjudication has been deferred or withheld.” Id. Therefore, under the majority’s ruling, depending on such vagaries as whether a juvenile has been afforded the opportunity of probation pursuant to La. Ch.C. art. 896 (describing 17post-adju-dication probation pursuant to a deferred dispositional agreement), if proceedings are initiated when an offender is sixteen years old, but final adjudication does not occur until after the offender’s eighteenth birthday, the offender could be required to register.

Although the sex offender registry exists to protect the public, the legislature, via La. R.S. 15:542(A)(2) and (3), has indicated that a juvenile who commits an indecent act with another juvenile need not register when adjudicated a delinquent as a juvenile. Nevertheless, the majority essentially rules that when the offender is even further removed in time from the offense, because the offender has now attained adulthood, the public somehow now needs greater protection. Therefore, another incongruous result of the present ruling becomes apparent when considering that the legislature long ago determined the public needed no registration protection whatsoever from a juvenile who commits indecent acts with another juvenile, but this court rules decades later that the public needs, in some instances, the protections afforded by sex offender registration.

Stated differently, if protection were indeed required when a juvenile commits the indecent acts with another juvenile, then logic demands protection would be required near in time to the offense. The legislature has not determined the need for such protection, because if the offense is adjudicated before the offender’s eighteenth birthday, registration is plainly not required. See La. R.S. 15:542(A)(2) and (3). The majority’s present ruling, when viewed through the lens of what constitutes legitimate protection, is backwards. Furthermore, because an offender is exempt from registration nearer in time to the indecent acts, ie., during the offender’s juvenile years, the majority’s requirement for the public to be alerted to the indecent acts |Rdecades later is a result contrary to La. C.C. art. 9 (requiring laws to be interpreted in a manner that avoids absurd results).

The majority claims to have considered the consequences of its ruling by considering “laws on the same subject matter” and interpreting such laws “in reference to each other” as required by La. R.S. 1:3, and La. C.C. arts. 12 and 13. However, the majority overlooks the import of a provision within the very same statute it presently applies, La. R.S. 15:542.

Specifically, a provision addressing carnal knowledge of a juvenile is found in La. R.S. 15:542(F)(2), which empowers “the court of conviction” to “waive sex offender registration and notification requirements” for a conviction of “felony carnal knowledge of a juvenile (R.S. 14:80),” under certain circumstances and if certain formalities are met. However, the majority’s ruling makes registration mandatory for the instant offense of indecent behavior with a juvenile, when committed as a juvenile. See La. R.S. 15:542(F)(1) (describing non-waivable registration as the general rule). Given that the penalty for carnal knowledge includes up to ten years hard labor (La. R.S. 14:80(D)(1)), the legislature has deemed carnal knowledge of a juvenile to be a more serious offense, than indecent behavior with a juvenile which has a lesser penalty, ie., “with or without hard labor for not more than seven years.” See La. R.S. 14:81(H)(1).

| aThus, through its imposition of a non-waivable registration mandate, the majority has effectively imposed more severe consequences for an offense that the legislature has deemed less serious. Logic dictates the legislature would not more severely sanction the less serious offense. The majority has overlooked that for felony carnal knowledge of a juvenile, the legislature has made available a waiver procedure, which is unavailable under the majority’s ruling to a juvenile who commits the lesser offense of indecent acts with a juvenile who must register as a sex offender. A review of the registration requirement contained in La. R.S. 15:542 in light of laws on the same topic reveals sentencing consequences contained within the very same statute have been overlooked.

I emphasize that just as I have previously joined in opinions holding that Louisiana’s sex offender registry is remedial, I am in no way retreating from that position. The sex offender registry was designed for the laudable purpose of protecting the public. See La. R.S. 15:540. The problem with the instant case is that, notwithstanding the design of the registry, persons who were never statutorily-required to register at the time of their juvenile offense are now being required to register because they pled guilty after their eighteenth birthday. Admittedly, these facts are unique from those previously analyzed by this court. However, because the legislature deemed the offense of indecent acts with a juvenile, when committed as a juvenile did not merit remediation in the form of registering as a sex offender, the majority ruling of this court ignores the lines of separation the legislature has drawn between offenses committed as a juvenile and as an adult. Such 110a result is, therefore, in violation of the legislature’s stated purposes. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.

HUGHES, J.,

dissenting.

|,I respectfully dissent for the reasons assigned by Justice Weimer. The law applicable should be determined by the time of the crime, not the time of the plea.

      . By amendment in 2008 of La. Child. Code art. 857(C)(2) and La.Code Crim. Proc. art. 876, the legislature authorized a procedure by which an adult who committed an offense while a juvenile may be prosecuted as an adult in a court exercising criminal jurisdiction, yet the adult defendant may be punished only to the extent that he would have been had he been tried as a child in a court exercising juvenile jurisdiction. Thus, La. Child. Code art. 857(C)(2), entitled “Transfer of crimes from juvenile court to district court; authority,” provides as follows:
      An adult who is charged with an offense committed at the time he was a child for which the time limitation for the institution of prosecution pursuant to Code of Criminal Procedure Art. 571 has not lapsed and for which he was not subject to prosecution as an adult due to his age at the time the offense was committed shall be prosecuted as an adult in the appropriate court exercising criminal jurisdiction. If convicted, he shall be committed to the custody of the Department of Public Safety and Corrections to be confined in secure placement for a period of time as determined by the court not to exceed the maximum amount of confinement he could have been ordered to serve had he been adjudicated for the offense as a child at the time the offense was committed.

      . Indecent behavior with a juvenile, a violation of La.Rev.Stat. 14:81, is á "sex offense” for which registration is required. La.Rev. Stat. 15:541 provides in pertinent part: "(24)(a) 'Sex offense' means ... conviction for ... R.S. 14:81 (indecent behavior with juveniles).”

      . La. Child. Code art. 857 provides for transfers for criminal prosecution of the juvenile charged with first and second degree murder, aggravated kidnapping and aggravated rape, aggravated battery with discharge of a firearm, armed robbery with a firearm, and forcible rape of a child at least two years younger.

        La. Child. Code art. 305 addresses the divestiture of juvenile court jurisdiction for a child who commits first degree and second degree murder, aggravated rape, aggravated kidnapping, attempted first and attempted second degree murder, manslaughter, armed robbery, aggravated burglary, forcible rape, simple rape, second degree kidnapping, aggravated battery with a firearm, second or subsequent offense aggravated battery, second or subsequent offense aggravated burglary, and second or subsequent offense burglary of an inhabited dwelling.

      . La.Rev.Stat. 15:540 provides as follows:

      . State v. I.C.S., 47,829, p. 1 (La.App. 2 Cir.2/27/13), 110 So.3d 1208, 1215 (Caraway, J„ dissenting), quoting La. R.S. 15:542(A)(2).

      . Id. 47,829 at 1-2, 110 So.3d at 1215 (Caraway, J., dissenting).

      . See Id., 47,829 at 1-2, 110 So.3d at 1215-16 (Caraway, J., dissenting).

      . If viewed in isolation, La. R.S. 15:542(A)(1) would impose a registration requirement because each defendant, having reached the age of majority at the time of pleading guilty, is arguably now "[a]ny adult residing in this state who has pled guilty to ... (a) A sex offense as defined in R.S. 15:541.” On the other hand, La. R.S. 15:542(A)(3) exempts from the registration requirement, among others, juveniles whose offenses were committed before "attainting] the age of fourteen,” and La. R.S. 15:542(A)(2) essentially exempts from registration a juvenile who does not commit an enumerated offense (indecent acts with a juvenile is not enumerated). Because the registration requirement is primarily described in terms of the offense, the offenses themselves must be considered and the more specific categories, comprehensively addressing juvenile offenses, La. R.S. 15:542(A)(2) and (3), must apply.

        .State v. Dick, 06-2223 (La. 1/26/07), 951 So.2d 124, 130.

      . State v. Wilkins, 13-2539, p. 2 (La.1/15/14), 131 So.3d 839, 840

      . " ‘[0]ur history is replete with laws and judicial recognition’ that children cannot be viewed simply as miniature adults.” Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U.S. 104, 115-16, 102 S.Ct. 869, 71 L.Ed.2d 1 (1982). In Miller v. Alabama, - U.S. -, -, 132 S.Ct. 2455, 2471, 183 L.Ed.2d 407 (2012), the Court further found, as a justification for relieving adults from the harshest sentencing consequences when their offenses were committed as juveniles, "that ‘developments in psychology and brain science continue to show fundamental differences between juvenile and adult minds,’ ” (Miller, 132 S.Ct. at 2464-65, quoting Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48, 68, 130 S.Ct. 2011, 176 L.Ed.2d 825 (2010)), and these differences "both lessened a child’s 'moral culpability' and enhanced the prospect that, as the years go by and neurological development occurs, his " ‘deficiencies will be reformed.’ ” Miller, 132 S.Ct. at 2464-65, quoting Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48, 68, 130 S.Ct. 2011, 176 L.Ed.2d 825 (2010), quoting Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551, 570, 125 S.Ct. 1183, 161 L.Ed.2d 1 (2005).

        .See generally La. Ch.C. art. 305 (entitled "Divestiture of juvenile court jurisdiction; original criminal court jurisdiction over children; when acquired”).

      . Louisiana's sex offender registration requirement was established by 1992 La. Acts 388, § 1, effective June 18, 1992.

      . See Wilkins, 13-2539 at 2, 131 So.d at 840.

      . Unfortunately, because of the trauma of being victimized as a minor, it has long been recognized that a delay in reporting sexual abuse of a minor is not uncommon among such victims. See David McCord, Expert Psychological Testimony About Child Complainants in Sexual Abuse Prosecutions: A Foray Into the Admissibility of Novel Psychological Evidence, 77 J.Crim. L. & Criminology 1, 60-61 (1986).

      . See La. Ch.C. art. 116(3) (" 'Child' means a person who has not attained the age of eighteen years, except as it is specially defined by a Title of this Code.”).

      . Unless tried as an adult, juveniles are not convicted, but are adjudicated delinquent. See La. Ch.C. art. 884(A) ("Following the adjudication hearing, the court shall immediately declare whether the evidence warrants an adjudication that the child is delinquent.”).

      . See La. R.S. 15:540.

      . According to the indictment, the indecent acts were committed in 2004, i.e., approximately a decade ago. The district court’s order requires registration for another decade and a half.

      . Under La. R.S. 15:542(F)(1), except for the offense of carnal knowledge of a juvenile (see La. R.S. 15:542(F)(2) and (3)), when registration requirements are triggered, those requirements "are mandatory and shall not be waived or suspended by any court.”

      .Another penalty, which applies to offenders seventeen or more years of age, includes mandatory "hard labor for not less than two nor more than twenty-five years.” La. R.S. 14:81(H)(2). Again, in this instance, the legislature recognized what the majority of this court has not-that offenders who commit sex crimes when juveniles should generally suffer lesser consequences.

      . See, e.g., Smith v. State, 2010-1140, pp. 15-16 (La.1/24/12), 84 So.3d 487, 497-98 (citing with approval State ex rel. Olivieri, 00-0172 (La.2/21/01), 779 So.2d 735); State v. Trosclair, 11-2302, p. 16 (La.5/8/12), 89 So.3d 340, 350-351 (citing with approval State ex rel. Olivieri).


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: PER CURIAM. HUGHES, J.,

license: Public Domain

text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Leonard CARDENAS, III.
    No. 2013-C-2982.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    July 1, 2014.

      East Baton Rouge District Attorney’s Office, Hon. Hillar Clemen Moore III, District Attorney, Monisa L. Thompson, Assistant District Attorney, for Applicant.
    Manasseh, Gill, Knipe & Belanger, PLC, James Gordon Knipe III, for respondent.
   PER CURIAM.

liWe granted the state’s application to review the decision of the First Circuit affirming the district court’s order of ex-pungement entered in respondent’s case following the court’s set aside of his misdemeanor conviction and sentence for domestic abuse battery with child endangerment in violation of La.R.S.14:35.3(I), and dismissal of the prosecution under La.C.Cr.P. art. 894. The district court entered the order, and the court of appeal affirmed, notwithstanding La.R.S. 44:9(A)(5)(b), which provides that “[n]o person shall be entitled to an expungement if the misdemeanor conviction arose from circumstances involving a sexual act or act of domestic violence.” For reasons that follow, we reverse the decision of the court of appeal and vacate the expungement order under the law as it currently exists.

In September 2006, the state charged respondent with domestic abuse battery involving an incident with his wife that occurred on July 19, 2006 in the presence of their minor child. A bench trial took place on April 4, 2007, and the court found respondent guilty as charged. The court sentenced him to six months imprisonment, suspended all but 60 days of that term, directed home incarceration for the executory portion of the sentence, and imposed one year of active probation 12with a variety of special conditions. The trial court terminated the probation as successfully completed on May 19, 2010. Thereafter, defendant filed a motion to reconsider sentence in which he requested that the court set aside his conviction and dismiss the prosecution under La.C.Cr.P. art. 894. The court granted the motion over the state’s objection on May 18, 2011. Respondent then filed an Expungement Form on July 28, 2011, seeking to expunge his arrest and conviction record for domestic abuse battery with child endangerment. The district court granted the motion on August 23, 2011 and directed counsel to prepare the order of expungement. Two such orders appear in the record. The first, dated September 5, 2012, and apparently stamped with the judge’s signature, directs the named parties to “expunge any and all public records of the arrest and disposition ... the date of arrest being on or about July 19, 2006, and the disposition of these charges namely, DOMESTIC ABUSE BATTERY WITH CHILD ENDANGERMENT (MISDEMEANOR).” The second, dated September 17, 2012, drafted by counsel and signed by the judge, directs the named parties to expunge only the record of respondent’s arrest on July 19, 2006.

The state appealed to the First Circuit, arguing that the district court had erred as an initial matter by granting respondent’s motion to reconsider sentence after he finished serving it and setting aside his conviction, and then in ordering expungement of the records relating to the prosecution in apparent complete disregard of La.R.S. 44:9(A)(5)(b). In a split-panel decision, the First Circuit declined to revisit the district court’s judgment granting respondent’s motion to reconsider sentence and affirmed the court’s expungement order. State v. Cardenas, 13-0509 (La.App. 1 Cir. 11/26/18) (unpub’d). The majority conceded |3at the outset that Louisiana’s expungement law is convoluted and confusing. Cardenas, 13-0509 at 7 (“ ‘Our observation that the clarity of these laws, as amended, leaves much to be desired.’ ”) (quoting State v. Savoie, 92-1586, p. 2 (La.5/23/94), 637 So.2d 408, 409). The majority nevertheless divided expungement of misdemeanor arrest and/or conviction records into three general categories: (1) R.S. 44:9(E)(3)(a) applies to the expungement or destruction of conviction records in misdemeanor prosecutions that are dismissed pursuant to La.C.Cr.P. art. 894(B); (2) R.S. 44:9(A)(l)(b) applies to the ex-pungement of arrest records when a misdemeanor prosecution has been instituted “and such proceedings have been finally disposed of by dismissal, sustaining of a motion to quash, or acquittal;” and (3) R.S. 44:9(A)(5) governs expungement of arrest records in cases in which the movant has been convicted of a misdemeanor, “if five or more years [have] Relapsed between the date of the motion and the successful completion of any sentence, deferred adjudication, or period of probation or parole.” Cardenas, 13-0509 at 10.

For the court of appeal majority, the rule of statutory interpretation that the specific governs over the general, id. at 9 (citing Corbello v. Sutton, 446 So.2d 301 (La.1984)), meant that respondent’s case, in which he “sought expungement of his arrest record”, id. at 6, fell in either the first or second categories to the exclusion of the third category because “[t]he present case [did] not involve a situation in which the defendant has waited five years since the serving of his sentence or probation to seek expungement.” Cardenas, 13-0509 at 11. To this extent, R.S. 44:9(A)(l)(b) and (E)(3)(a) were “more directly applicable to the present situation and [they] have no limitation on domestic violence cases being ineligible for expungement.” Id. The upshot for the majority was that, given the remedial purposes of the law, State v. Boniface, 369 So.2d 115, 116 (La.1979) (“R.S. 44:9 was designed to protect individuals from future harassment and embarrassment by virtue of a criminal record.... Remedial statutes are liberally construed to suppress the evil and to advance the remedy.”) (citation and footnote omitted), “the trial court correctly granted defendant’s expungement of his arrest record pursuant to La.R.S. 44:9(A)(1).” Cardenas, 13-0509 at 11. The premise for lathe conclusion is that a set aside of a conviction and dismissal of the prosecution which “shall have the same effect as an acquittal” as a matter of La.C.Cr.P. art. 894(B)(2), is an acquittal for purposes of La.R.S. 44:9(A)(l)(b) governing expungement of arrest records in cases in which there has been a “dismissal, sustaining of a motion to quash, or acquittal.”

Judge Guidry dissented. In his view, the majority had the case backwards when discussing its preference for the specific over the general. The general provision for expunging misdemeanor arrest records appears in La.R.S. 44:9(A)(l)(a), when prosecution is not instituted, or (A)(1)(b) when prosecution has been instituted but does not result in a conviction. The general provision for expunging conviction records in misdemeanor cases when there has been a conviction subsequently set aside under La.C.Cr.P. art. 894 is La.R.S. 44:9(E)(3)(a). On the other hand, “La.R.S. 44:9(A)(5)(a) relates specifically to obtaining expungement of an arrest record after a conviction of a misdemeanor and allows for expungement ‘if five or more years have elapsed between the date of the motion and the successful completion of any sentence, deferred adjudication, or period of probation or parole.’ ” Id. at 2 (Guidry, J., dissenting). Judge Guidry reasoned that the specific provision for expunging arrest records when a conviction has been entered is therefore La.R.S. 44:9(A)(5)(a), not (A)(1)(a) or (b), as the majority concluded, but under (A)(5)(b), “no person shall be entitled to an expungement if the misdemeanor conviction arose from circumstances involving a sexual act or act of domestic violence.” Id. Thus, Judge Gui-dry concluded that respondent was “not entitled to seek expungement of his arrest record.” Id.

The majority and dissenting opinions in the First Circuit panel thus addressed the district court’s order of September 17, 2012 directing expungement of respondent’s record of arrest only, without regard to the earlier order dated September 5, 2012, directing expungement of both the arrest and conviction | (¡records. The ambiguity in the record with respect to the breadth of the district court’s order touches on yet another ambiguity in Louisiana’s expungement law adding to our prior expressions of dismay over its convoluted nature. The provisions of La.R.S. 44:9(A)(5) originated in 2010 La. Acts 609. The title to the act reads as follows: “To enact R.S. 44:9(A)(5) relative to the ex-pungement of certain criminal records; to authorize the expungement of certain misdemeanor conviction records under certain circumstances; to provide relative to the motion for expungement; and to provide for related matters.” (emphasis added). The title of an act “may be instructive in determining legislative intent.” Authement v. Shappert Engineering, 02-1631, p. 8 (La.2/25/03), 840 So.2d 1181, 1186; State v. Modere, 352 So.2d 666, 668 (La.l977)(same). But the text of R.S. 44:9(A)(5) says nothing about conviction records. It states in pertinent part:

(5)(a) Any person who has been convicted for the violation of a ... state statute which is classified as a misdemeanor may make a written motion to the district ... court in which the violation was prosecuted or to the district court located in the parish in which he was arrested, for expungement of the arrest record if five or more years has elapsed between the date of the motion and the successful completion of any sentence, deferred adjudication, or period of probation or parole. Notwithstanding the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure Article 892.1 or 894, or any other provision of law to the contrary regarding the set aside of a conviction or the dismissal of a prosecution, an expungement shall occur only once with respect to any person during a five-year period, except in the case of a misdemeanor offense of operating a vehicle while 17intoxicated which may occur only once with respect to any person during a ten-year period (emphasis added).
(b) No person shall be entitled to an expungement if the misdemeanor conviction arose from circumstances involving a sexual act or act of domestic violence.
(d) If, after a contradictory hearing with the district attorney and the arresting law enforcement agency, the court finds that the mover is entitled to the relief sought for the above reasons, it shall order all law enforcement agencies to expunge but not destroy the record of the same in accordance with the provisions of this Paragraph....

Before the enactment of La.R.S. 44:9(A)(5), the only provision authorizing expungement of conviction records was La. R.S. 44:9(E)(3)(a), enacted by 1999 La. Acts 1111, which generally authorizes the expungement or destruction of conviction records in misdemeanor cases in which the conviction has been set aside under La. C.Cr.P. art. 894. The legislature did not provide a definition of what it meant by the term “conviction record,” but it did provide that “[u]pon the entry of such an order of expungement, all rights which were lost or suspended by virtue of the conviction shall be restored to the person against whom the conviction has been entered, and such person shall be treated in all respects as not having been arrested or convicted unless otherwise provided in this Section or otherwise provided in the Code of Criminal Procedure Articles 893 or 894.” La.R.S. 44:9(E)(3)(b) (former (E)(3)) (emphasis added). Expungement of the conviction record as a matter of (E)(3)(a) seemingly encompasses the record of arrest as well, just as the district court’s order dated September 5, 2012, provided. See also La.R.S. 44:9(1) (“Except for those entities listed in Subsection G of this Section, no person whose record of arrest and conviction has been expunged pursuant to the provisions of this Section shall be required to disclose that he was arrested or convicted for the subject offense or that the record of the arrest and conviction has been expunged unless otherwise provided in this Section.”) (emphasis added).

|sThe provisions of La.R.S. 44:9(E)(3)(a) did not, however, address extant misdemeanor convictions and House Representative Gallot introduced 2010 H.B. 927, which then became 2010 La. Acts 609, to remedy that situation. In his remarks to the House Committee on the Administration of Justice on May 5, 2010, and to the Senate Judiciary Committee B on June 8, 2010, Representative Gallot explained that the bill would offer an alternative route to expungement for those persons who, for one reason or another, did not have the advantage of the set-aside provided by La. C.Cr.P. art. 894(B) as the first step towards expungement under R.S. 44:9(E)(3)(a). As originally proposed in House Bill 927, La.R.S. 44:9(A)(5) provided the basic rule that any person convicted of a misdemeanor offense may apply for an expungement of the record of arrest following the expiration of five years from the finality of conviction and sentence. Subsequent amendments in the Senate added (A)(5)(b), excluding crimes involving sexual acts or acts of domestic violence, and in the House, inserted the language in (A)(5)(a) that “Notwithstanding the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure Article 892.1 or 894, or any other provision of law to the contrary regarding the set aside of a conviction or the dismissal of a prosecution, an expungement shall occur only once with respect to any person during a five-year period except in the case of a misdemeanor offense of operating a vehicle while intoxicated which may occur only once with respect to any person during a ten-year period.” A virtually identical proviso appears in La.C.Cr.P. art. 894(B)(2), with respect to setting aside misdemeanor convictions and dismissing the prosecutions. The amendments thus narrowed the scope of Representative Gal-lot’s original bill by excluding specified classes of cases and sharply curtailing the availability of expungement in any given | afive-year period including those cases involving set-asides under La.C.Cr.P. art. 894.

Under current law, and at the time the district court issued the expungement orders) in respondent’s case, the latest expression of legislative will with regard to expungement of arrest and/or conviction records in misdemeanor cases is not La. R.S. 44:9(A), or La.R.S. 44:9(E)(3)(a), but La.R.S. 44:9(A)(5). McLane Southern, Inc. v. Bridges, 11-1141, p. 9 (La.1/24/12), 84 So.3d 479, 485 (“This Court has held that it is a fundamental rule of statutory construction that when two statutes deal with the same subject matter, if there is a conflict, the statute specifically directed to the matter at issue must prevail as an exception to the statute more general in character. Further, this Court has provided that the latest expression of legislative will is considered controlling and prior enactments in conflict are considered as tacitly repealed in the absence of an express repealing clause.”)(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). We need not in the present case resolve as a general matter any ambiguity in R.S. 44:9(A)(5) whether the legislature meant to address expungement of both misdemeanor conviction records (as in the title to the act) and arrest records (as in the text of the act). With regard to the specific crime of domestic abuse battery, the majority on the First Circuit panel failed to take into account the limiting language inserted by the House in (A)(5)(a). Under current law, a person may set aside a misdemeanor conviction and dismiss the prosecution once during a given five-year period of time as a matter of La.C.Cr.P. art. 894(B)(2). He may obtain an expungement in the case of a misdemeanor conviction once during the same five-year period of time as a matter of La.R.S. 44:9(A)(5)(a). A conviction set aside under La.C.Cr.P. art. 894(B)(2), otherwise subject to expungement under R.S. 44:9(E)(3)(a), counts as |inthe one conviction for purposes of La.R.S. 44:9(A)(5)(a). But within this five-year period marked out by the legislature, “[n]o person shall be entitled to an expungement if the misdemeanor conviction arose from circumstances involving a sexual act or act of domestic violence.” La.R.S. 44:9(A)(5)(b) (emphasis added).

We therefore agree with Judge Guidry that at least in this instance, R.S. 44:9(A)(5), and specifically (A)(5)(b), as the latest expression of legislative will embodied in current law, superseded the earlier provisions of La.R.S. 44:9(A) and 44:9(E)(3)(a). We further find, consistent with the broad and unqualified language of La.R.S. 44:9(A)(5)(b), removing expungement as an alternative in cases involving sexual acts or acts of domestic violence, that the district court erred in the present case by ordering the expungement of respondent’s record to any extent, whether of arrest only or of arrest and conviction. Accordingly, the decision of the First Circuit is reversed and, out of an abundance of caution, both orders of expungement dated September 5, 2012, and September 17, 2012, are vacated in their entirety.

We note here that during the pendency of the state’s application in this Court, the legislature was considering 2014 House Bill 55, which proposed to repeal La. R.S.44:9 in its entirety and to enact Title XXXIV of the Code of Criminal Procedure to add Articles 971 through 995. That bill, passed by the legislature as 2014 La. Acts 145, was signed into law by the Governor on May 23, 2014, effective August 1, 2014. As now the latest expression of legislative will, La.C.Cr.P. art. 977 specifically provides for the expungement (but not destruction) of the record of arrest and conviction in misdemeanor cases if: (1) the conviction was set aside and the prosecution dismissed pursuant to La.C.Cr.P. art. 894(B); or (2) more than five years have elapsed since completion of sentence, deferred adjudication, or period or probation or parole. Further, La.C.Cr.P. art. 977(D)(1) provides that expungement of a record of arrest and conviction may occur only |nonce with respect to any person during a five-year period, “unless the person was sentenced pursuant to Code of Criminal Procedure Article 894(B).” But, “[n]o person shall be entitled to expungement of a record under ... the following circumstances ... (2) The misdemeanor conviction was for domestic abuse battery which was not dismissed pursuant to Code of Criminal Procedure Article 894(B).” La.C.Cr.P. art. 979(C)(2). We express no opinion here whether respondent may be entitled to expungement of his record of arrest and conviction for domestic abuse battery under this latest expression of legislative will.

DECISION OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT REVERSED; ORDERS OF EXPUNGEMENT VACATED.

HUGHES, J., dissents and would deny the application and affirm the decisions of the lower courts.

HUGHES, J.,

dissenting.

_JjI respectfully dissent and would deny the application and affirm the decisions of the lower courts.

      . With regard to misdemeanor convictions, La.C.Cr.P. art. 894(A)(1) permits a trial court to suspend the imposition or execution of sentence and place the defendant on active or inactive probation. When imposition of sentence has been deferred, La.C.Cr.P. art. 894(B)(1) provides that if the court finds "at the conclusion of the period of deferral that the defendant has not been convicted of any other offense during the period of the deferred sentence, and that no criminal charge is pending against him, the court may set the conviction aside and dismiss the prosecution.”
      In the present case, the trial court did not defer the imposition of sentence but suspended execution of all but 60 days of the six-month sentence imposed. The option of setting aside the conviction and dismissing the prosecution would ordinarily not be available under that circumstance, but in its written judgment, dated April 27, 2011, granting respondent's motion to reconsider sentence, the court adverted to La.C.Cr.P. art. 881.1(A)(2) which provides that in misdemeanor cases, a defendant may move to reconsider sentence at any time "following commencement or execution of such sentence” and the court may "grant the motion and amend the sentence, even following completion of execution of the sentence, to impose a lesser sentence which could lawfully have been imposed." On the premise that a deferred sentence as a matter of La.C.Cr.P. art. 894(A)(1) is a lesser sentence for purposes of La.C.Cr.P. art. 881.1(A)(2), the district court vacated defendant’s original sentence and deferred imposition of sentence under the same terms of probation as originally imposed. Respondent had successfully fulfilled those conditions and the court accordingly set aside his conviction and dismissed the prosecution under La. C.Cr.P. art. 894(B)(1). The court acknowledged that when domestic abuse battery involves child endangerment, the minimum mandatory term of imprisonment for a first offense "shall be served without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence." R.S. 14:35.3(C). The court further noted, however, that when the legislature intends to eliminate deferral of sentence as an option, it does so expressly. See, e.g., La.R.S. 14:80(D)(1) (in cases of felony carnal knowledge of a juvenile, "the defendant shall not be eligible to have his conviction set aside or his prosecution dismissed in accordance with the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure Article 893."). No such restriction exists in R.S. 14:35.3 and after noting the salutary effects of the law for those offenders able to complete a probationary term successfully, the court found "no basis in law or in fact” for denying the motion to reconsider.
      The First Circuit declined to review the merits of the court’s judgment in this respect because the state, although objecting at the time, did not timely seek review and the judgment therefore became final before the state appealed from the subsequent order of ex-pungement. Cardenas, 13-0509 at 4-5. Thus, the only issues properly before this Court are those raised by the district court’s order of expungement.

      . Current Louisiana expungement law distinguishes between the expungement and destruction of arrest or conviction records. As specifically defined, expungement “means removal of a record from public access but does not mean destruction of the record.” La.R.S. 44:9(G). Thus, while La.R.S. 44:9(E)(3)(a) permits a court to expunge or destroy the record of conviction in a misdemeanor case that has been dismissed pursuant to La. C.Cr.P. art. 894, it expressly provides that a court may not order the destruction of the record for first or second offense D.W.I. The legislature does not, however, consistently adhere to the distinction. While La. R.S. 44:9(A)(1) provides for the expungement of arrest records under the circumstances defined in (l)(a) and (l)(b), (A)(2) states that "[i]f the court finds that the mover is entitled to the relief sought as authorized by this Subsection, it shall order all agencies and law enforcement offices having any record of the arrest.... to destroy any record of arrest....” (emphasis added). La.R.S. 44:9(A)(2) excludes from its compass only the destruction of arrest records for first or second offense D.W.I., consistent with the identical exclusion in (E)(3)(a). Thus, while La.R.S. 44:9(A)(1) addresses expungement of arrest records, (A)(2) expressly authorizes their destruction in all but D.W.I. misdemeanor cases. In the 2014 comprehensive revision (see text, infra), Louisiana law will consistently provide for expungement only of arrest and conviction records, not their destruction in any case.

      . The state’s original application to this Court specifically adverted to the order dated September 5, 2012, and argued that the court erred in ordering expungement of respondent's conviction. But the application also referred to the order dated September 17, 2012, and, in fact, attached an unsigned copy of it as prepared by counsel. The brief subsequently filed by the state also refers to both orders as if they were interchangeable. We understand the state to take the position that respondent is simply not entitled to an ex-pungement (to whatever extent) in the present case. For his part, respondent poses the issue as whether present law provides for ex-pungement of an arrest record following the set-aside of a conviction for domestic abuse battery under La.C.Cr.P. art. 894.

      . The legislature implicitly acknowledged as much in 2014 La. Acts 145, signed by the Governor into law on May 23, 2014 (effective August 1, 2014), repealing La.R.S. 44:9 in its entirety and adding articles 971 through 995 to the Code of Criminal Procedure in a comprehensive revision of Louisiana’s expungement law. See text, infra.

      . In both appearances, Representative Gallot used as an example misbehaving college students acquiring a minor misdemeanor record which then may shadow their subsequent careers as they finally mature and may hold them back. See: http://house.louisiana.gov/

        H-video/2010/2010.htm; http://senate.lagov/ judiciayb/archives/2010/video.htm (accessed May 27, 2014). Expungement of the convictions would bring those persons pursuing employment under the umbrella of R.S. 44:9(1).


author: CLARK, Justice. GUIDRY, ■ Justice,

text:
    Aaron EMIGH, et al. v. WEST CALCASIEU CAMERON HOSPITAL, et al.
    No. 2013-CC-2985.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    July 1, 2014.

      Blue Cross Blue Shield of LA, Charles Andrew O’Brien, III, Allison Nunley Pham, for Applicant.
    Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC, Errol J. King, Jr., Layna Suzanne Cook, Broussard & Hart, LLC, J. Steven Broussard, Aaron James Brous-sard, Robert Sere’ Kleinschmidt, Jr., Flanagan Partners, LLP, Andy Joseph Dupre, Anders F. Holmgren, Thomas More Flanagan, Hoffoss Devall, LLC, Donald Wayne McKnight, Claude P. Devall, Jr., John Lee Hoffoss, Jr., Scofield, Gerard, Pohorelsky, Gallaugher & Landry, Robert E. Landry, Peter Jan Pohorelsky, Veron, Bice, Palermo & Wilson, Michael Glenn Hodgkins, for Respondent.
   CLARK, Justice.

LA putative class action was filed against West Calcasieu Cameron Hospital (hereinafter referred to as “WCCH”) for alleged violations of La. R.S. 22:1874, also known as the “Balance Billing Act.” This suit was expanded to name several health insurance issuers as defendants. The current claim under review is asserted by the plaintiff Laura Delouche against her insurer, Louisiana Health Service <& Indemnity Company, d/b/a Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Louisiana (hereinafter referred to as “Blue Cross”). We granted certiora-ri to determine whether a cause of action exists, whereby Delouche can pursue a legal remedy against Blue Cross. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the lower court’s denial of Blue Cross’s exception of no cause of action and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On or about August 13, 2010, Delouche was injured in an automobile accident and received treatment at WCCH in Calcasieu Parish. As alleged in the petition for damages, Delouche was insured by Blue Cross at the time of the accident under an individual Blue Saver High Deductible policy. Pursuant to this policy of health insurance, Delouche paid premiums and agreed to use specific providers in exchange fyfor reduced health care rates, known in the policy as the “Allowable Charge.” WCCH was a “contracted health care provider” with Blue Cross, as defined in La. R.S. 22:1872(6). As such and pursuant to the Provider Agreement between WCCH and Blue Cross, WCCH contractually agreed to accept these reduced rates as payment in full for services provided to the Blue Cross insured (Delouche). Additionally, WCCH agreed to hold the insured (De-louche) harmless for any amounts other than any applicable deductible, co-pay, and/or coinsurance.

At the time of treatment, Delouche notified WCCH that she was insured by Blue Cross; however, WCCH refused to accept her insurance and ignored the agreed upon reduced price. Instead, WCCH charged Delouche the full, undiscounted amount of $718.00 and asserted a lien against any tort recovery Delouche may receive from a third party as a result of the automobile accident. This practice of rejecting insur-anee and collecting or attempting to collect full charges is referred to as “balance billing” and is prohibited by law. See La. R.S. 22:1874. Delouche sued WCCH for this practice of over-billing.

In a supplemental petition, Delouche added Blue Cross as a defendant, claiming Blue Cross was liable for WCCH’s failure to perform. Blue Cross filed several exceptions, including an exception of no cause of action. The trial court overruled the exception, and the court of appeal de- - nied writs, with one dissenting judge noting that a full opinion was required.

IsBlue Cross filed a writ application with this court. We granted certiorari to determine whether the factual allegations in Delouche’s petition give rise to any cause of action against Blue Cross.

APPLICABLE LAW

The peremptory exception of no cause of action is designed to test the legal sufficiency of a petition by determining whether a party is afforded a remedy in law based on the facts alleged in the pleading. La.Code Civ.P. art. 927; Everything on Wheels Subaru, Inc. v. Subaru South, Inc., et al., 616 So.2d 1234, 1235 (La.1993). All well-pleaded allegations of fact are accepted as true and correct, and all doubts are resolved in favor of sufficiency of the petition so as to afford litigants their day in court. La.Code Civ.P. art. 865; Kuebler v. Martin, 578 So.2d 113, 114 (La.1991). The burden of demonstrating that a petition fails to state a cause of action is upon the mover. Fink v. Byrant, 01-0987, p. 4 (La.11/28/01), 801 So.2d 346, 349.

In Greemon v. City of Bossier City, 2010-2828, p. 8 (La.7/1/11), 65 So.3d 1263, 1268, this court explained Louisiana’s fact pleading system:

Louisiana’s Code of Civil Procedure uses a system of pleading based upon the narration of factual allegations. See Montalvo v. Sondes, 93-2813, p., 6 (La.5/23/94), 637 So.2d 127, 131. As described in La.Code Civ.P. art. 854: “No technical forms of pleading are required. All allegations of fact of the petition, exceptions, or answer shall be simple, concise, and direct, and shall be set forth in numbered paragraphs.” The fact-pleading requirement replaces an earlier “theory of the case” pleading requirement. See La.Code Civ.P. art. 862, Official Revision Comments — 1960, cmt. (b). Because the “theory of the case” pleading requirement has been abolished, “[s]o long as the facts constituting the claim or defense are alleged or proved, the party may be granted any relief to which he is entitled under the fact-pleadings and evidence.” Cox v. W.M. Heroman & Co., Inc., 298 So.2d 848, 855 (La.1974), overruled on other grounds by A. Copeland Enterprises, Inc. v. Sli-dell Memorial Hosp., 94-2011, p. 9 (La.6/30/95), 657 So.2d 1292, 1299. However, even though the “theory of the case” need no longer be pled, La. Civ. P. art. 891 provides that a petition “shall contain a short, clear, and concise statement of all causes of action arising out of, and of the material facts |4of, the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the litigation.” (Emphasis added.)

The sufficiency of a petition subject to an exception of no cause of action is a question of law, and a de novo standard is applied to the review of legal questions; this court renders a judgment based on the record without deference to the legal conclusions of the lower courts. See Foti v. Holliday, 2009-0093, p. 6 (La.10/30/09), 27 So.3d 813, 817.

DISCUSSION

To determine whether any valid cause of action exists, we must examine the factual allegations contained in the petition. We note that typically evidence is not allowed to be admitted to support or controvert an exception of no cause of action. See La. Code Civ. P. art. 931. However, the parties, without objection, admitted the contracts at issue, thereby expanding what the court may examine in determining whether a legal remedy exists. (See City of New Orleans v. Bd. of Directors of Louisiana State Museum, 98-1170 (La.3/2/99), 739 So.2d 748, 756, wherein the court recognized the jurisprudential exception to the rule that allows evidence admitted without an objection to enlarge the pleadings.)

Delouche alleges Blue Cross “agreed and promised that if its insureds were treated by a contracted health care provider, such as WCCH, the provider would submit claims to the insurer, and that all that the insured would be required to pay to the provider for covered services would be any deductible, co-payment, coinsurance or other amounts as provided for in the policy of insurance as the insured[’]s responsibility.” Delouche alleges that WCCH did not comply with its obligations. Thus, as averred in her petition, Blue Cross is liable for WCCH’s failure to perform as promised by Blue Cross. The petition generally alleges liability under a breach of contract theory and also detrimental reliance. Moreover, Delouche contends Blue | ¿Cross “has failed to take reasonable steps to enforce the agreement and promise described above, and has allowed and encouraged WCCH” to engage in this prohibited billing practice.

In support of her lawsuit, Delouche contends the petition clearly states a cause of action. She, an insured, entered into a contract with Blue Cross whereby she agreed to pay premiums in exchange for the availability of negotiated group discounts for health care costs. She contends she upheld her obligation but did not receive the | (¡promised discount. Additionally, Delouche argues Blue Cross promised that the provider (WCCH) would file all claims with Blue Cross on her behalf, as the insured, but WCCH did not submit her claim to Blue Cross. Instead, WCCH actively rejected her insurance. Delouche contends this is an additional example of Blue Cross disregarding its promise to her. Blue Cross’s failure to deliver what it promised subjects it to liability.

Blue Cross, in defending its exception of no cause of action, argues the sole object of the contract between itself and its insured, Delouche, is payment of covered medical expenses. Blue Cross asserts it did not promise that a third party contracted provider would honor its billing obligations. Rather, the billing obligations of the provider as established by the Provider Agreement between Blue Cross and WCCH are simply accessories to and a means of fulfilling the underlying object of paying for covered benefits. Thus, as argued by Blue Cross, if WCCH’s performance is not the object of the insurance contract between Blue Cross and De-louche, it stands to reason that WCCH’s non-performance cannot constitute a breach of the insurance contract by Blue Cross. Further, Blue Cross contends that it is not obligated to police the acts of a provider or act as its surety.

The trial court, in overruling Blue Cross’s exception, found there to be a valid cause of action under La. Civ.Code art. 1977, which provides:

The object of a contract may be that a third person will incur an obligation or render a performance.
The party who promised that obligation or performance is liable for damages if the third person does not bind himself or does not perform.

17This civilian concept known as pro-messe de porte-fort contemplates a contract in which the object is that a third party will undertake a certain obligation; in the event of non-performance of that obligation by the third party, the promisor becomes liable to the promisee. Blue Cross, as mentioned above, argues the object of the contract is solely to pay for covered health care services. Delouche acknowledges that payment of covered medical bills is an obvious object of the contract, but she contends the object extends beyond mere payment based on the terms and conditions of the contract of insurance. Rather, the object is to also secure reduced health care costs and tender payment for those negotiated, discounted costs. We agree with Delouche.

In this two-contract health care system that affects the majority of health insurance policies in this state, the insurance issuer, such as Blue Cross, promises to its insureds, such as Delouche, coverage and the availability of discounted rates based on the existence of its contract with its contracted providers, such as WCCH. The purpose of a health insurance contract and the very reason insureds obligate themselves to the payment of premiums and a restricted choice of in-network providers, is to receive coverage and the benefits of negotiated, reduced health care costs. To narrowly construe the object to mean only payment of covered charges, as Blue Cross argues, ignores the raison d’etre of the contract: an economic benefit to the insured. Holding otherwise is illogical based on the terms of this high deductible policy, where the promised reduced rate attaches the instant a medical charge is incurred, regardless of whether a deductible has been satisfied. The insurance policy |sat issue promised that even the out-of-pocket expenses that count towards Delouche’s deductible would be subject to a discount. If all that was promised by Blue Cross was coverage of the maximum amount, the incentive to have insurance, specifically a high deductible policy, dissipates insofar as the insured could simply pay the non-discounted bill herself without also incurring the costs of premiums. For these reasons, we find an object of the contract is the entitlement to discounted health care costs.

The actual billing of this promised, discounted charge is performed by a third party. Thus, Blue Cross is promising that a third party will render a performance, which fits squarely within the context of La. Civ.Code art. 1977.

Blue Cross avers this interpretation as argued by Delouche amounts to suretyship or vicarious liability; however, we observe that Blue Cross itself entered into the contract with Delouche and made certain assurances. The fact that Blue Cross could only deliver based on third party performance does not make Blue Cross immune to liability. Thus, we find, at a minimum, the material facts alleged in the petition are sufficient to survive an exception of no cause of action under La. Civ. Code art. 1977. We expressly offer no opinion as to the success of this claim, only that Delouche is afforded the right to judicially assert an action against Blue Cross.

| gFACTUAL DEFENSES Blue Cross acknowledges that WCCH, as the provider, contractually agreed to file claims for services rendered to insureds for payment by Blue Cross. Blue Cross further points to policy language that instructs an insured how to file his/ her own claim. Blue Cross argues that, despite these provisions, no claim for the treatment after the accident was ever filed in this matter by either WCCH or De-louche. Without a submitted claim, there was nothing to process. Thus, Blue Cross avers it cannot be liable. Next, Blue Cross argues Delouche did not meet any of her $1,700.00 deductible and because the charge of $718.00 was less than the deductible, Blue Cross would not pay any of this amount regardless of the circumstances. Lastly, in defense, Blue Cross relies on the following contractual language to support its argument that its liability is limited by virtue of the policy between itself and De-louche:

Non Responsibility for Acts of Providers:

We will not be liable for or on account of any fault, act, omission, negligence, misfeasance, malfeasance or malpractice on the part of any Hospital or other institution, or any agent or employee thereof, or on the part of any Physician, Allied Provider, nurse, technician or other person participating in or having to do with Your care or treatment.

We find these factual defenses are relevant to the merits of this case and are not appropriate to consider at this stage of the proceeding. Accordingly, we expressly decline to entertain them and offer no conclusions as to the success of the underlying claims or defenses of Delouche and Blue Cross, respectively.

CONCLUSION

To conclude, we find Delouche’s petition sufficiently alleges facts to survive Blue Cross’s exception of no cause of action. For the reasons provided herein, we | maffirm the trial court’s ruling overruling Blue Cross’s exception and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

AFFIRMED AND REMANDED.

GUIDRY, ■ Justice,

dissents and assigns reasons.

|J respectfully dissent from the majority’s holding that the plaintiff has asserted a cause of action against her health insurer under either the Health Care and Consumer Billing and Disclosure Protection Act, La. Rev. State. 22:1871 et seq. (commonly known as the “Balance Billing Act”) or La. Civ.Code art. 1977.

The function of the peremptory exception of no cause of action is to question whether the law extends a remedy to the plaintiff under the factual allegations of the petition. Kinchen v. Livingston Parish Council, 07-0478 (La.10/16/07), 967 So.2d 1137. Here, the plaintiff seeks to recover damages against her health insurer for her health care provider’s alleged violations of the Balance Billing Act. However, in my view, the legislature has not provided the insured a private right of action under the Balance Billing Act against the health care provider for improper billing or collection practices; therefore, it certainly has not provided the insured with an action against her health insurer for her health care provider’s alleged violation of the Act. As I explained in my dissent in the companion ease of Yana Anderson v. Ochsner Health System and Ochsner Clinic Foundation, 13-CC-2970 (La.7/1/14), — So.3d -, 2014 WL 2937101, (Guidry, J., dissenting), the legislature has expressly provided two remedies for a health care provider’s violations of the Balance Billing Act. Specifically, an insured may file a complaint with the Consumer Protection Division of the Department of [ ¡Justice pursuant to La.Rev.Stat. 22:1877(A)(1), which delegates to the attorney general the discretion to pursue remedies under the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices Act, La.Rev.Stat. 51:1401 et seq. Alternatively, in the event the health care provider maintains an action at law seeking to enforce a lien against the insured for an amount in excess of the reimbursement rate, the insured is entitled to attorneys fees and costs if the suit is successfully defended. La.Rev.Stat. 22:1874(B).

I also find no merit in the majority’s reliance on La. Civ.Code art. 1977 to circumvent the insured’s lack of privity of contract to support her breach of contract claims. The plaintiff pleaded the provisions of not only her contract with her health insurer, but also the provider agreement between the health insurer and the health care provider. While the majority concedes the insured is not a party to the provider agreement, it suggests by virtue of the insured’s contract with her insurer, who allegedly promised discounted rates, that the insurer has guaranteed the health care provider’s performance of its obligations under the Balance Billing Act. However, there is no promesse de porte-fort as alleged by the insured, because if there is no private right of action for an insured against the health care provider who violates the Act, there can be no cause of action by the insured against the health insurer for its failure to guarantee the performance of the health care provider under the Balance Billing Act.

GUIDRY, J., dissents and assigns reasons.

VICTORY, J., dissents for the reasons assigned by J. GUIDRY.

      . Delouche had a $1,700 deductible amount, which she must annually satisfy before Blue Cross tenders any payment for health care costs.

      . The Blue Saver policy defines "Allowable Charge” as: "[t]he lesser of the billed charge or the amount established by Us or negotiated as the maximum amount allowed for all Provider services covered under the terms of this Contract.” This term represents the maximum amount the health care provider can bill an insured for a covered service, procedure, or treatment.

      . The liability of a health care provider for balance billing is the central issue in the un-derfying class action against WCCH and is not currently before this court in this case. While balance billing in the context of La. R.S. 22:1874 is not a concern in this matter, we considered its legal consequences in a separate case. See Anderson v. Ochsner, 13-2970 (La.2014) - So.3d -, 2014 WL 2937101.

        .Emigh v. West Calcasieu Cameron Hospital, 13-1038 (La.App. 3 Cir. 11/26/13),-So.3d -.

      . Emigh v. West Calcasieu Cameron Hospital, 13-2985 (La.3/14/14), 134 So.3d 1184.

      . Delouche points to the policy language to support her argument: ‘‘[the insured] will not be billed the $[ ] difference between the Hospital’s billed charge and the Allowable Charge for the Covered Service.”
      Further, The policy offers these two examples of coverage. Because the record has not yet revealed whether WCCH was a PPO Provider Hospital or a Participating Hospital with Blue Cross, both examples illustrated in the policy are included:
      EXAMPLE: You have a Subscriber Only (single Member) PPO policy with a $1,700 annual Deductible Amount. You have 100%/0% Coinsurance when You receive Covered Services from Hospitals in the PPO Network and 80%/20% Coinsurance when you receive Covered Services from Hospitals that are not in the PPO Network. You receive Covered Services at a Hospital that are not Emergency Medical Services and the charge for the service is $3,000. We have negotiated an Allowable Charge of $1,000 with our PPO Hospitals for this service. We have negotiated an Allowable Charge of $1,200 with our Participating Hospitals for this service. You have previously met Your annual $1,700 Deductible Amount.
      Scenario 1: When You Go To A PPO Provider Hospital

      When you receive Medically Necessary Covered Services from a PPO Hospital, We pay the PPO Provider Allowable Charge, less any applicable Coinsurance amount that You pay. Because of the agreement that this Hospital signed with Us to be in Our PPO Network, the Hospital will accept the Allowable Charge of $1,000 for Your Covered Service as payment in full. You pay nothing (Your 0% Coinsurance of the Allowable Charge) and We pay $1,000 (Our 100% Coinsurance of the Allowable Charge). Also, because of Our Agreement with this Hospital, You will not be billed for the $2,000 difference between the Hospital’s billed charge and the Allowable Charge for the Covered Service.
      Had you not met Your Deductible Amount in the above example, the Allowable Charge of $1,000 would count toward Your Deductible Amount of $1,700.
      Scenario 2: When You Go To A Participating Hospital

      When you receive Medically Necessary Covered Services from a Participating Hospital, We pay our Coinsurance percentage of the Participating Provider Allowable Charge, less any applicable Coinsurance amount that You pay.
      Because of this agreement that this Hospital signed with Us to be in Our Participating Provider Network, the Hospital will accept the Allowable Charge of $1,200 for Your Covered Service as payment in full. We pay $960 (Our 80% Coinsurance of the Allowable Charge) and You pay $240 (Your 20% Coinsurance of the Allowable Charge). Also because of Our Agreement with this Hospital, You will not be billed for the $1,800 difference between the Hospital's billed charge and the Allowable Charge for the Covered Service.

      . Delouche also asserts that a second object of the contract is that the provider will file a claim with Blue Cross. However, she concedes the primary object of promising discounted rates exists even if the promise that the provider would submit the claim is not found to be a legitimate object of the contract. As such, we limit our discussion to the contention that the promise of lowered rates is the object of the contract.

      . For instance, under the facts of this case, because Delouche had not yet satisfied her deductible, her personal financial responsibility would be less than the $718.00 maximum charge had her insurance been honored.

      . Even if we found mere payment of medical bills was the object of the contract, we find WCCH's failure to accept Delouche’s insurance at all, despite Blue Cross’s assurances to the contrary, still exposes Blue Cross to liability under La. Civ.Code art.1977.

      . Insofar as Delouche relies on other theories of the law in her suit against Blue Cross, we offer no opinion as to their existence as valid causes of action or to their ultimate success. Nothing in this opinion should be construed as limiting her ability to pursue any theory of her case to the extent the law allows nor should it be construed as endorsing one remedy over any others. Rather, having found the factual allegations in Delouche’s petition give rise to her right to proceed, we pretermit discussion of additional claims.