author: PER CURIAM.

text:
    In re Kevin Lenn HANCHEY.
    No. 2014-B-1683.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 8, 2014.
   ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS

PER CURIAM.

_JjThis disciplinary matter arises from formal charges filed by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (“ODC”) against respondent, Kevin Lenn Hanchey, an attorney licensed to practice law in Louisiana but currently on interim suspension pursuant to a joint motion of the parties filed, in March 2012. In re: Hanchey, 12-0696 (La.4/4/12), 85 So.3d 78.

FORMAL CHARGES

Count I — The Overdraft Matter

In April 2009, the ODC received notice of a $2,540.76 overdraft of respondent’s client trust account. The next month, the ODC received notice of a second overdraft of respondent’s trust account in the amount of $572.02.

Respondent failed to file a written response to the ODC’s notice of the overdraft issues, necessitating the issuance of a subpoena to obtain his sworn statement. During the February 2010 sworn statement, respondent was unable to provide an explanation for the overdrafts.

Thereafter, respondent agreed to retain the services of auditor Ronnie White to reconcile his trust account and identify any potential issues with his handling of the account. However, respondent failed to cooperate with Mr. White, and a complete reconciliation of the trust account still has not been performed. Using the limited information the ODC was able to receive from other sources, Mr. White | ¡.prepared a preliminary audit report on July 26, 2011 showing unaccounted for client funds.

During the course of the ODC’s investigation, respondent was ineligible to practice law from November 30, 2009 until January 25, 2010 for failing to timely file his trust account disclosure statement. Despite his ineligibility, he continued to practice law.

The ODC alleged that respondent’s conduct violated the following provisions of the Rules of Professional Conduct: Rules 1.15(a) (safekeeping property of clients or third persons), 5.5(a) (engaging in the unauthorized practice of law), 8.1(c) (failure to cooperate with the ODC in its investigation), and 8.4(c) (engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation).

Count II — The Chiropractor Fraud Matter

While investigating respondent’s trust account records, the ODC discovered numerous trust account checks written to Juanita Boyd, who was an employee of Advanced Chiropractic Clinic in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. The checks, written over several years and referencing various clients, totaled more than $75,000.

The Louisiana State Police arrested Ms. Boyd, and in her statement to police, she claimed she was involved in a scheme with respondent and respondent’s runner, Patrick Green. In the scheme, Mr. Green would solicit personal injury cases on respondent’s behalf, and respondent would refer the clients to Advanced Chiropractic Clinic for treatment. Once a client’s case settled, respondent would send Ms. Boyd a check, made payable to her, in the amount of the bill that Advanced Chiropractic Clinic had submitted for the client’s treatment. Upon receipt of the check, Ms. Boyd would cash the check and distribute the funds equally among respondent, Mr. Green, and herself.

| ¡¡Respondent denied any knowledge of the scheme and has not yet been charged with a crime. Nevertheless, based on Ms. Boyd’s statement to police and other information, the ODC alleged that respondent violated the following provisions of the Rules of Professional Conduct: Rules 7.4(a) (direct contact with prospective clients), 8.4(b) (commission of a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer), and 8.4(c).

Count III — The Bell Matter

In September 2009, respondent settled Lester Bell’s personal injury matter for $4,141. However, he failed to disburse the settlement funds until August 2010, after Mr. Bell filed a disciplinary complaint against him. Respondent admitted that he had forgotten to disburse the funds. When Mr. Bell received the settlement documents, he claimed he never approved the settlement amount because he would not have accepted a settlement wherein he would not net any money for himself.

Respondent failed to submit a written response to the complaint, necessitating the issuance of a subpoena to obtain his sworn statement. During the January 2011 sworn statement, respondent claimed he had authority to endorse the settlement check on Mr. Bell’s behalf and deposited same into his trust account in December 2009. He also admitted that no payments were forwarded to Mr. Bell’s medical providers.

The ODC requested telephone logs from respondent to verify that he contacted Mr. Bell in prison about the settlement. However, respondent claimed there were no records, and the prison warden indicated no logs are kept to show inmate calls with their attorneys. The ODC also requested respondent’s trust account records to verify that the $2,540.60 in medical expenses had remained in the account since December 2009. In a March 2012 sworn statement to the ODC, respondent admitted that he withdrew all of the funds from his trust account and [4kept the cash in a safe in his home. However, he did not provide the ODC with any records to verify that he maintained possession of the portion of Mr. Bell’s settlement intended to pay him and his medical providers.

In connection with this investigation, the ODC also learned that respondent was ineligible to practice law beginning June 19, 2010. Nevertheless, he continued to practice law.

The ODC alleged that respondent’s conduct violated the following provisions of the Rules of Professional Conduct: Rules 1.3 (failure to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client), 1.4 (failure to communicate with a client), 1.15(a), 5.5(a), 8.1(c), and 8.4(c).

Count TV — The Martin Matter

In April 2009, Lisa Martin hired respondent to represent her in a slip and fall personal injury matter. Respondent timely filed a lawsuit on Ms. Martin’s behalf. However, respondent’s secretary failed to perfect service on the defendant via the long-arm statute, and Ms. Martin’s claim prescribed.

When the defendant refused to settle Ms. Martin’s prescribed claim for the previously offered $2,500 settlement, respondent offered to personally pay Ms. Martin the $2,500. However, he failed to advise her in writing that she should seek independent legal counsel concerning this settlement agreement. Furthermore, in paying this settlement amount, on August 4, 2011, respondent improperly wrote Ms. Martin a $500 check from his client trust account. Respondent admitted that he was having financial problems and wanted to keep funds out of his bank accounts. Thus, he deposited the $500 into his trust account when he needed to make the payment to Ms. Martin.

During respondent’s handling of this matter, he was also ineligible to practice law.

|fiThe ODC alleged that respondent’s conduct violated the following provisions of the Rules of Professional Conduct: Rules 1.3, 1.4, 1.8(h)(2) (a lawyer shall not settle a claim or potential claim for malpractice 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), 1.15(a), 5.3 (failure to properly supervise a non-lawyer assistant), and 5.5(a).

Count V — The Baker Physical Therapy Matter

In April 2009, respondent wrote to Baker Physical Therapy regarding the treatment of his client, Angelia Honora. Respondent included a $250 check and guaranteed payment of Ms. Honora’s balance out of any settlement or judgment obtained in her case. Respondent settled Ms. Honora’s claim. However, a year after the settlement, Ms. Honora’s bill at Baker Physical Therapy still had not been paid.

In January 2012, Baker Physical Therapy filed a disciplinary complaint against respondent. Respondent did not respond to notice of the complaint, necessitating the issuance of a subpoena to obtain his sworn statement. During his March 2012 sworn statement, respondent indicated he did not have a reason for his failure to respond to the complaint. He also indicated that the payment of Ms. Honora’s bill went unresolved because of a balance bill issue that needed to be addressed. Respondent paid Ms. Honora’s bill after the complaint was filed. However, during his sworn statement, he admitted that he was having personal financial problems. As such, he had removed all funds from his client trust account and kept said funds in a safe at his home. He also indicated that he would return the funds to the trust account “piecemeal” and pay bills for clients as necessary.

IfiThe ODC alleged that respondent’s conduct violated the following provisions of the Rules of Professional Conduct: Rules 1.15(a), 1.5(d) (failure to timely remit funds to a client or third person), 8.1(c), and 8.4(c).

Count VI — The Miscellaneous Matters

In connection with its other investigations into respondent’s conduct, the ODC discovered evidence of the following additional misconduct:

1. Respondent was declared ineligible to practice law beginning on June 19, 2010, but he continued to practice law;
2. Respondent was arrested for Driving While Intoxicated (“DWI”) on April 11, 2010;
3. As of February 29, 2012, respondent maintained a website that stated he “specialized” in personal injury, wrongful death, and medical malpractice law;
4. Respondent engaged in runner-based solicitation through his repeated financial dealings with Kevin Christenterry. Mr. Christenterry was respondent’s “ad man” and was repeatedly compensated for bringing respondent personal injury clients;
5. Respondent failed to promptly remit employee payroll withholdings to the IRS and/or the Louisiana Department of Revenue;
6. Due to his indebtedness to Advocate Financial, respondent obtained a loan from another financial institution and pledged a non-existent accident as collateral;
7. Respondent repeatedly failed to cooperate with numerous ongoing investigations by the ODC, including numerous failures to provide requested documents and responses to complaints filed against him; and _Jj8. Respondent continues to fail to update his address with the Louisiana State Bar Association (“LSBA”) after vacating his office more than a year ago.

Notice of the above issues was mailed to respondent on March 14, 2012. Nevertheless, respondent still has not provided a formal written response to any of these issues.

The ODC alleged that respondent’s conduct violated the following provisions of the Rules of Professional Conduct: Rules 1.1(c) (failure to comply with annual registration requirements), 5.5(a), 7.2(c)(5) (a lawyer shall not state or imply that the lawyer is “certified,” “board certified,” an “expert,” or a “specialist”), 7.4(a), 8.1(c), 8.4(b), and 8.4(c).

Count VII — The Harrison Matter

Respondent represented Merlin Harrison in two personal injury matters. The first matter settled in July 2008. However, respondent failed to pay Mr. Harrison’s Baton Rouge General Medical Center bill in the amount of $11,809.05 from the settlement. Respondent wrote a check for $1,293 to pay Mr. Harrison’s LA Emergency & Trauma Specialists bill, but the check was voided the same day. There is no indication that these funds were paid from respondent’s client trust account to the appropriate party. The ODC could find no information concerning respondent’s role in the second personal injury matter.

Mr. Harrison filed a disciplinary complaint against respondent in January 2012. He complained that he was still receiving bills from Baton Rouge General Medical Center and could not reach respondent. He was also concerned that respondent had kept the money that was supposed to pay the hospital bill. He further indicated that the hospital bill had been turned over to a collection agency. Respondent received notice of the complaint on March 24, 2012 but failed to respond.

|sThe ODC alleged that respondent’s conduct violated the following provisions of the Rules of Professional Conduct: Rules 1.3,1.4,1.15(a), 8.1(c), and 8.4(c).

DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS

In January 2013, the ODC filed formal charges against respondent. Respondent failed to answer the charges. Accordingly, the factual allegations contained therein were deemed admitted and proven by clear and convincing evidence pursuant to Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 11(E)(3). The parties were given an opportunity to file written arguments and documentary evidence on the issue of sanctions. Respondent filed nothing for the hearing committee’s consideration.

Hearing Committee Report

After considering the ODC’s deemed admitted submission, the hearing committee determined that all of the factual allegations against respondent have been proven by clear and convincing evidence. The committee further found the following:

1. In Count I, respondent intentionally converted client funds and intentionally continued to practice law while he was ineligible;
2. In Count II, respondent engaged in fraudulent criminal behavior and runner based solicitation;
3. In Count III, respondent failed to communicate a settlement offer to Mr. Bell and converted the settlement funds to his own use while ineligible to practice law;
4. In Count IV, respondent failed to advise Ms. Martin of the need to seek independent counsel regarding his allowing Ms. Martin’s claim to prescribe and trying to settle with her while still ineligible to practice law;
⅛⅜5. In Count V, respondent converted client funds to his own use;
6. In Count VI, respondent continued to practice law while ineligible, was arrested for DWI, maintained an improper website, engaged in runner based solicitation, failed to remit payroll withholdings to the IRS and the Louisiana Department of Revenue, pledged a non-existent accident to secure a loan, failed to cooperate with the ODC in its investigations, and failed to update his address with the LSBA; and
7. In Count VII, respondent converted Mr. Harrison’s funds to his own use.

Based on these factual findings, the committee determined that respondent violated the following provisions of the Rules of Professional Conduct: Rules 1.1(c), 1.3, 1.4, 1.8(h)(2), 1.15(a), 1.15(d), 5.3, 5.5(a), 7.2(c)(5), 7.4(a), 8.1(c), 8.4(b), and 8.4(c).

The committee further determined that respondent intentionally and knowingly violated duties owed to his clients, the public, and the legal profession. He caused actual injury in the form of significant loss of client funds deemed converted. Based on the ABA’s Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, the committee determined that the baseline sanction is disbarment.

The committee found the following aggravating factors: a dishonest or selfish motive, a pattern of misconduct, multiple offenses, bad faith obstruction of the disciplinary proceeding by intentionally failing to comply with the rules or orders of the disciplinary agency, refusal to acknowledge the wrongful nature of the conduct, and substantial experience in the practice of law (admitted 1999). The committee did not address the presence of any mitigating factors.

After considering respondent’s conduct in light of the permanent disbarment guidelines set forth in Supreme Court Rule XIX, Appendix E, as well as this court’s prior jurisprudence addressing similar misconduct, the committee recommended he be permanently disbarred.

linNeither respondent nor the ODC filed an objection to the committee’s report and recommendation.

Disciplinary Board Recommendation

After review, the disciplinary board found that the factual allegations in the formal charges have been conclusively established. Based on these facts, the board determined respondent violated the Rules of Professional Conduct as follows:

1. Respondent violated Rule 1.1(c) by failing to update his primary registration address with the LSBA.
2. Respondent settled Mr. Bell’s claim without his knowledge or consent and then failed to disburse the settlement funds to Mr. Bell. He failed to communicate with Ms. Martin regarding the status of her personal injury matter and then failed to file suit on her behalf, causing her claim to prescribe. Finally, respondent failed to communicate with Mr. Harrison about either of his personal injury matters and failed altogether to take any steps in furtherance of the second personal injury matter. Accordingly, respondent violated Rules 1.3 and 1.4.
3. Respondent failed to advise Ms. Martin in writing to seek independent legal counsel regarding his allowing her claim to prescribe. Accordingly, respondent violated Rule 1.8(h)(2).
4. During his March 2012 sworn statement, respondent admitted that, due to his personal financial issues, he withdrew all funds from his client trust account and placed the money in a safe in his home. Respondent claimed his intention was to return the funds to the trust account “piecemeal” as they were needed to make payments. However, respondent is unable to provide an accounting of these funds and is unable to verify that he is still in possession of these funds. In Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Krasnoff, 488 Soffdn 1002 (La.1986), this court rejected this so-called “black box defense” in attorney discipline cases, and respondent has failed to produce any evidence to overcome the presumption of conversion. Thus, respondent’s “safeguarding” of these funds in a safe in his home amounts to conversion. Additionally, respondent failed to pay Baker Physical Therapy for Ms. Honora’s treatment. Accordingly, respondent violated Rules 1.15(a) and 1.15(d).
5. Respondent negotiated and accepted settlements on behalf of Mr. Bell and Mr. Harrison without their express agreement. Respondent then failed to issue settlement funds to Mr. Bell or his medical providers and failed to issue settlement funds to Mr. Harrison’s medical providers. Accordingly, respondent violated Rule 3.2 (failure to make reasonable efforts to expedite litigation).
6. Respondent did not properly supervise his secretary in that she failed to forward the service copy for Ms. Martin’s lawsuit via certified mail as required by the long-arm statute. As a result, service was not perfected, and Ms. Martin’s case prescribed. Accordingly, respondent violated Rule 5.8.
7. Respondent has been ineligible to practice law since June 19, 2010, yet he continued to practice law. Accordingly, respondent violated Rule 5.5(a).
8. Respondent’s website indicated that he specialized in personal injury, wrongful death, and medical malpractice law, none of which are areas offered for certification by the Board of Legal Specialization. Accordingly, respondent violated Rule 7.2(c)(5).
9. The record contains statements of three individuals who claim respondent may have engaged in runner based solicitation through his use of Patrick Green and Kevin Christen-terry. However, these three statements do not amount to clear and convincing evidence that respondent engaged in runner |12based solicitation. The ODC did not depose any of these individuals. Nor did the ODC depose Mr. Green or Mr. Christenterry. Respondent testified that he was not involved with runner based solicitation of clients. As such, the evidence in the record does not rise to the level of clear and convincing evidence that respondent was involved in client solicitation in violation of Rule 7.4(a).
10. Respondent failed to supply the ODC and his own auditor with financial records. He also failed to cooperate with the ODC in numerous investigations. Accordingly, respondent violated Rule 8.1(c).
11. Respondent converted client funds when he liquidated his trust account and moved his clients’ funds to a safe in his home and when he failed to explain how overdrafts of his trust account occurred. Respondent was also arrested for DWI, failed to pay third party medical providers from client settlement funds, and failed to promptly remit employee payroll withholding to the IRS or Louisiana Department of Revenue. Additionally, respondent participated in a fraudulent scheme to defraud the owner of Advanced Chiropractic Clinic, misrepresented a client’s knowledge and agreement to the terms of a settlement, and made payments to a client whose case he allowed to prescribe because he did not have malpractice insurance. Accordingly, respondent violated Rules 8.4(b) and 8.4(c).

The board further determined that respondent knowingly and intentionally violated duties owed to his clients, the legal system, and the legal profession. After considering the ABA’s Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, the board determined that the baseline sanction is disbarment.

11sIn aggravation, the board found the following: a prior disciplinary record (an August 2009 admonition for engaging in a conflict of interest, failing to communicate with a client, and failing to timely remit funds to a third party), a dishonest or selfish motive, a pattern of misconduct, multiple offenses, bad faith obstruction of the disciplinary proceeding by intentionally failing to comply with the rules or orders of the disciplinary agency, refusal to acknowledge the wrongful nature of the conduct, substantial experience in the practice of law, and indifference to making restitution. The board found no mitigating factors present.

After considering respondent’s conduct in light of the permanent disbarment guidelines set forth in Supreme Court Rule XIX, Appendix E, as well as this court’s prior jurisprudence addressing similar misconduct, the board recommended he be permanently disbarred. The board also recommended that respondent be ordered to make restitution to the clients whose funds he converted.

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

DISCUSSION

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

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

The record in this deemed admitted matter indicates that respondent neglected legal matters, failed to communicate with clients, attempted to settle a malpractice claim without informing the client in writing to seek advice from outside counsel, practiced law while ineligible, participated in a scheme to defraud a third party medical provider, failed to pay third party medical providers from client settlements, mishandled his client trust account, resulting in conversion of client funds, and failed to cooperate with the ODC in its investigations. The disciplinary board’s factual findings and determinations of rule violations are not manifestly erroneous, except as follows: (1) the board found respondent failed to file suit on Ms. Martin’s behalf, causing her claim to prescribe; however, the record indicates that respondent filed a lawsuit on Ms. Martin’s behalf but failed to perfect service on the defendant, which caused Ms. Martin’s claim to prescribe. (2) The board also found respondent violated Rule 3.2 by failing to issue settlement funds to Mr. Bell or his medical providers and failing to issue settlement funds to Mr. Harrison’s medical providers; however, this rule violation was not alleged in the formal charges, and the misconduct is best addressed through the other rule violations found by the 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 11fiSo.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).

Respondent knowingly and intentionally violated duties owed to his clients, the public, and the legal profession. His conduct caused actual harm to his clients and the public. The baseline sanction for this type of misconduct is disbarment. We agree with the aggravating factors found by the board and agree that there are no mitigating factors.

We also agree that permanent disbarment is appropriate under Guideline 1 (repeated or multiple instances of intentional conversion of client funds with substantial harm) of the permanent disbarment guidelines. Respondent mishandled his client trust account, causing overdrafts to occur. He also failed to pay his clients’ third party medical providers, resulting in harm to his clients. Additionally, and most egregiously, respondent was involved in a scheme to defraud Advanced Chiropractic Clinic, which resulted in his clients’ chiropractor bills not being paid from their settlement funds. Respondent’s mishandling of his trust account and misuse of his clients’ settlement funds demonstrate that he poses a threat of harm to the public in the event he is permitted to resume practicing law. In order to protect the public, he must be permanently disbarred.

Accordingly, we will adopt the board’s recommendation and permanently disbar respondent. We will also order respondent to make restitution to the clients whose funds he converted.

DECREE

Upon review of the findings and recommendations of the hearing committee and disciplinary board, and considering the record, it is ordered that the name of |1fiKevin Lenn Hanchey, Louisiana Bar Roll number 26320, be stricken from the roll of attorneys and that his license to practice law in the State of Louisiana be revoked. Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 24(A), it is further ordered that respondent be permanently prohibited from being readmitted to the practice of law in this state. It is further ordered that respondent shall make restitution to the clients whose funds he converted. 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.

      . The ODC did not object to the board’s finding regarding the lack of evidence of respondent’s involvement in runner based solicitation.


source: Caselaw Access Project

license: Public Domain

text:
    In re Wade P. RICHARD.
    No. 2014-B-1684.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 3, 2014.
   ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS

PER CURIAM.

| T This disciplinary matter arises from formal charges filed by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (“ODC”) against respondent, Wade P. Richard, a disbarred attorney.

PRIOR DISCIPLINARY HISTORY

Before we address the current charges, we find it helpful to review respondent’s prior disciplinary history.

Respondent was admitted to the practice of law in Louisiana in 1988. In 1999, respondent consented to be publicly reprimanded by the disciplinary board after he entered a no contest plea to a misdemean- or charge of unauthorized use of a movable. In 2010, this court disbarred respondent, retroactive to the date of his interim suspension on February 15, 2006, based upon his conviction of criminal mischief stemming from a violent physical altercation with his elderly father and his forging of a medical record at the request of a client whom he represented on drug charges. In re: Richard, 10-1479 (La.11/30/10), 50 So.Bd 1284 {“Richard I”). Respondent has not sought readmission and remains disbarred.

|2Against this backdrop, we now turn to a consideration of the misconduct at issue in the instant proceeding.

UNDERLYING FACTS

In June 2007, respondent was driving with passenger Shannon Boudreaux when he was stopped by the Lafayette Police Department (“LPD”). The officers asked for respondent’s identification and discovered that his driver’s license had been suspended. The officers then arrested respondent, at which time respondent volunteered that there were “narcotics” inside the vehicle. Thereafter, officers from the Lafayette Parish Narcotics Unit were called to the scene. A subsequent search revealed the presence of approximately 200 alprazolam (Xanax) tablets. Respondent was then arrested and booked on charges of possession with intent to distribute Schedule IV narcotics. Respondent was later allowed to plead guilty to a misdemeanor (possession of drug paraphernalia) by the district attorney’s office.

DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS

In April 2013, the ODC filed formal charges against respondent, alleging that his conduct as set forth above violated Rule 8.4(b) (commission of a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Respondent answered the formal charges, denying any misconduct. The matter then proceeded to a formal hearing on the merits.

Hearing Committee Report

After considering the testimony and evidence presented at the hearing, the hearing committee found clear and convincing evidence that respondent and Mr. Bou-dreaux “worked together in setting up a drug deal with an undercover police ^officer, traveled to the meet location, all with the intent to sell the drugs ordered.” In reaching this conclusion, the committee found the ODC’s witnesses to be credible, and found respondent not credible. The committee specifically noted that respondent “was inconsistent with his statements attributed to him by the police, he was inconsistent with his oral testimony at the hearing, and he minimized his prior bad acts always with explanations.” Based on these findings, the committee determined respondent violated Rule 8.4(b) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

The committee determined respondent acted intentionally and knowingly in his possession of the drugs, and with the intent to distribute them. After reviewing the ABA’s Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, the committee determined the baseline sanction is disbarment.

In aggravation, the committee found the following factors: a prior disciplinary record, a dishonest or selfish motive, a pattern of misconduct, refusal to acknowledge the wrongful nature of the conduct, and substantial experience in the practice of law (admitted 1988). In mitigation, the committee found the imposition of other penalties or sanctions.

In light of the above findings, the committee recommended that respondent remain disbarred.

Neither respondent nor the ODC filed an objection to the hearing committee’s report and recommendation. However, in its brief to the disciplinary board, the ODC noted that respondent was previously disbarred for misconduct involving drugs and “continues to pose a significant danger to the welfare of the citizens of this state, and should be permanently precluded from exercising the privilege of practicing law.”

| ¿Disciplinary Board Recommendation

After reviewing the record, the disciplinary board determined the hearing committee’s factual findings are supported by the record and are not manifestly erroneous. The board also found that the hearing committee correctly applied the Rules of Professional Conduct to determine respondent violated Rule 8.4(b), as alleged in the formal charges. Accordingly, the board adopted the committee’s findings of fact and law.

The board determined respondent violated duties owed to the public and to the legal profession when he engaged in criminal conduct. These acts, by their very nature, were intentional and knowing and resulted in serious injury to the legal profession and potentially serious injury to the public. After considering the ABA’s Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, the board determined the baseline sanction is disbarment. The board adopted the aggravating and mitigating factors found by the committee.

After considering respondent’s conduct in light of the permanent disbarment guidelines set forth in Supreme Court Rule XIX, Appendix E, as well as this court’s prior jurisprudence addressing similar misconduct, the board recommended respondent be permanently disbarred. The board also recommended respondent be assessed with the costs and expenses of this proceeding.

Neither respondent nor the ODC filed an objection to the disciplinary board’s report and 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. p-0/2/09),⅞ 18 So.3d 57. While we are not bound in any way by the findings and recommendations of the hearing committee and disciplinary board, we have held the manifest error standard is applicable to the committee’s factual findings. See In re: Caulfield, 96-1401 (La.11/25/96), 683 So.2d 714; In re: Pardue, 93-2865 (La.3/11/94), 633 So.2d 150.

The record in this matter supports a finding that respondent conspired and arranged to sell controlled dangerous substances to an undercover narcotics officer. This misconduct amounts to a violation of Rule 8.4(b) of 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’s assessment that respondent knowingly and intentionally violated duties owed to the public and the legal profession. His actions resulted in serious injury to the legal profession and potentially serious injury to the public.

The baseline sanction for this type of misconduct is disbarment.

The board has concluded that respondent’s offenses are so egregious that he should be permanently disbarred. In support, the board cites Guideline 9 of the permanent disbarment guidelines (instances of serious attorney misconduct or conviction of a serious crime preceded by suspension or disbarment for prior ^instances of serious attorney misconduct or conviction of a serious crime). The board acknowledges, however, that although this guideline “does not technically ‘fit’ this matter, the parallel is apparent.”

The board is correct that Guideline 9 does not apply here. While respondent’s drug-related activity constitutes serious attorney misconduct, it was not preceded by his suspension or disbarment for prior instances of serious attorney misconduct or a conviction of a serious crime. Rather, respondent’s disbarment in Richard I occurred in 2010, after the June 2007 misconduct at issue in this matter. Furthermore, respondent has never been convicted of a serious crime, as that term is defined by Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 19. Therefore, Guideline 9 is inapplicable.

Nevertheless, it is abundantly clear that the permanent disbarment guidelines are not intended to bind our decision-making process. In re: Minor, 12-1006 (La.10/16/12), 100 So.3d 319. Regardless of the fact that respondent’s misconduct may not definitively fit any of the specific permanent disbarment guidelines, his conduct demonstrates a clear lack of moral fitness. His behavior continues to place the public at risk and tarnish the image of the legal profession. In order to protect the public and maintain the high standards of the legal profession in this state, we find respondent should not be allowed the opportunity to return to the practice of law in the future.

Accordingly, we will adopt the board’s recommendation and permanently disbar respondent.

DECREE

Upon review of the findings and recommendations of the hearing committee and disciplinary board, and considering the record, it is ordered that the name of Wade P. Richard, Louisiana Bar Roll number 19119, be stricken from the roll of 17attorneys and that his license to practice law in the State of Louisiana be revoked. Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 24(A), it is further ordered that respondent be permanently prohibited from being readmitted to the practice of law in this state. 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.

      . According to the board report, respondent was initially charged with felony theft of properly, including a knife, a pistol, and a caller ID box, from one of his clients in a domestic matter.

      . The ODC called Amanda Hebert, a forensic chemist with the Acadiana Criminalistics Laboratory, as well as several LPD officers to testify before the committee, including William White, John Kelley, Kyle Soriez, and Brent Taylor.


author: PER CURIAM. HUGHES, J.,

text:
    In re Rickey K. SWIFT.
    No. 2014-B-1756.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 3, 2014.
   ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS

PER CURIAM.

hThe Office of Disciplinary Counsel (“ODC”) commenced an investigation into allegations that respondent filed a frivolous lawsuit, engaged in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, and threatened to bring disciplinary charges against an attorney solely to obtain an advantage in a civil matter. 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 Rickey K. Swift, Louisiana Bar Roll number 17382, be and he hereby is publicly reprimanded.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that respondent shall be placed on unsupervised probation for a period of one year.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that ah 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.

HUGHES, J., concurs and assigns reasons.

HUGHES, J.,

concurring.

hi reluctantly concur. In my opinion respondent’s actions were neither sanc-tionable nor unethical, but rather were engendered by opposing counsel’s misuse of the public records in the underlying civil litigation.


text:
    In re Don L. SIMMONS, Jr.
    No. 2012-B-1824.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 3, 2014.
   ' ORDER

| Considering the Joint Motion to Dissolve Interim Suspension filed by respondent and the Office of Disciplinary Counsel,

IT IS ORDERED THAT this court’s order of August 10, 2012 interimly suspending respondent be and hereby is dissolved.

This order shall be effective immediately.

FOR THE COURT:

/s/ Greg G. Guidry

Justice, Supreme Court of Louisiana


text:
    In re Jeffrey David EASLEY.
    No. 2012-B-1565.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 25, 2013.
   In re Jeffrey D. Easley, Applying for Rehearing of this court’s action dated November 21, 2012.

Rehearing granted in part. Our order of November 21, 2012 is amended to provide that respondent may not re-apply for admission until July 3, 2013. In all other respects, the application for rehearing is denied.


author: WEIMER, J.,

text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Ronjoerox Damiso HAMILTON.
    No. 2013-KK-1323.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 20, 2013.
   In re Hamilton, Ronjoerox Damiso;— Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Lafayette, 15th Judicial District Court Div. L, No. 135354; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KW 13-00411.

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

WEIMER, J.,

concurs, noting that on the merits of this application, the district court indicated it would reconsider its ruling if the defense comes forward with evidence justifying disclosure of any relevant grand jury testimony.


text:
    CLIENT NETWORK SERVICES, INC. v. STATE of Louisiana; State Department of Health and Hospitals; Kathy H. Kliebert, in her Capacity as Interim Secretary, Department of Health and Hospitals; State, Division of Administration; State, Division of Administration, Office of State Purchasing; Kristy H. Nichols, in her Capacity as Commissioner of Administration; Sandra G. Gillen, in her Capacity as Director of State Purchasing; The Honorable Bobby Jindal, in his Capacity as Governor, State of Louisiana.
    No. 2014-CC-0966.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Aug. 25, 2014.
   In re Commissioner of Administration Kristy Nichols; Department of Health and Hospitals Secretary Kathy H. Kliebert; Director of State Purchasing Sandra Gil-len; Louisiana Department of Health and Hospital; State of Louisiana Division of Administration; State of Louisiana Governor Honorable Bobby Jindal; State of Louisiana Office of State Purchasing; — Defendants); Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. F, No. 621271; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2013 CW 2118.

Granted and remanded to the court of appeal for briefing, argument and full opinion.

WEIMER, J., would grant and docket.


text:
    Matilda EDISON v. LOUISIANA CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION. Alvin McMillian v. Louisiana Citizens Property Insurance Corporation. Percy Jefferson v. Louisiana Citizens Property Insurance Corporation. Louis Bailey v. Louisiana Citizens Property Insurance Corporation. Brenda Stephens Espinoza v. Louisiana Citizens Property Insurance Corporation. Curley Johnson, Sr. v. Louisiana Citizens Property Insurance Corporation.
    No. 2014-CC-1000.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 12, 2014.
   In re Louisiana Citizens Property Insurance Corporation; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. J, No. 2010-1482; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2013-C-1672 c/w 2013-C-169S c/w 2013-C-1694 c/w 2013-C-1695 c/w 2013-C-1696 c/w 2014-C-0136.

Denied.

VICTOR and WEIMER, JJ., would grant.


text:
    Chris ATHERTON v. ROSTEET LAW FIRM.
    No. 2014-C-1019.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 12, 2014.
   In re Atherton, Charles; Atherton, Chris; Chris Atherton d/b/a/ Atherton Intercontinental Concerts; International Concerts; — Plaintiffs); Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Calcasieu, 14th Judicial District Court Div. F, No. 2008-719-F; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 13-864.

Denied.

HUGHES, J., would grant.


text:
    J. REED CONSTRUCTORS, INC. v. ROOFING SUPPLY GROUP, L.L.C.
    No. 2014-C-1031.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 12, 2014.
   In re Roofing Supply Group L.L.C.;— Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certio-rari and/or Review, Parish of Ascension, 23rd Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 103,311; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2012 CA 2136.

Denied.

HUGHES, J., would grant.


text:
    Chadwick TAYLOR v. DEPARTMENT OF POLICE.
    No. 2014-C-1032.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 12, 2014.
   In re New Orleans Police Department; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, City Civil Service Commission Orleans, No. 7923; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2013-CA-1367.

Denied.


text:
    Julie O’Dell CARTER v. James D. CARTER.
    No. 2014-C-1037.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 12, 2014.
   In re Carter, James D.; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Rapides, 9th Judicial District Court Div. F, No. 209,595; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 13-1395.

Denied.

HUGHES, J., would grant.


text:
    David AKERS, dba Air Products Company v. BERNHARD MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS, INC., ASR General Contractors, Inc., and the City of Shreveport.
    No. 2014-C-1040.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 12, 2014.
   In re City of Shreveport; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Div. 1, No. 535,740; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 48,-871-CA.

Denied.


text:
    Rhonda Kay Kilcrease BOND v. William Keith BOND.
    No. 2014-CJ-1054.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 12, 2014.
   In re Bond, William Keith; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Livingston, 21st Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 126856; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2013 CU 1733.

Denied.

HUGHES, J., would grant the writ for the reasons expressed by Judge HIGGINBOTHAM.


text:
    TRACER PROTECTION SERVICE, INC. and Tracer Armed Services, Inc. v. David G. BURTON, Sr. and Rhonda W. Hayes.
    No. 2014-CC-1058.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 12, 2014.
   In re Tracer Armed Services, Inc.; Tracer Protection Services, Inc et ah;— Plaintiff(s); Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. I, No. 587952; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2014 CW 0240.

Denied.

HUGHES, J„ would grant.


text:
    Sandra HUNTER, Individually, et al. v. CHRISTUS HEALTH CENTRAL LOUISIANA, etc.
    No. 2014-C-1065.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 12, 2014.
   In re Louisiana Patients’ Compensation Fund; — Third Party; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Rapides, 9th Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 229736; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 13-1057.

Denied.


text:
    Jacqueline DANIELS v. LOUISIANA CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION.
    No. 2014-CC-1068.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 12, 2014.
   In re Louisiana Citizens Property Insurance Corporation; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 681-663; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 14-C-184.

Denied.

VICTORY and WEIMER, JJ„ would grant.


text:
    D & J FILL, INC. v. STATE of Louisiana, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY. D & J Fill, Inc. v. State of Louisiana, through the Department of Environmental Quality.
    No. 2014-C-1087.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 12, 2014.
   In re State of Louisiana, Department of Environmental Quality; State of Louisiana, through the Department of Environmental Quality; — Defendant(s); Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. O, No. 558,477 C/W 578,-855; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2013 CA 0762 C/W 2013 CA 0763.

Denied.


text:
    Lorise M. NAQUIN, Lucy Nguyen and Grantly, LLC v. BOLLINGER SHIPYARDS, INC., formerly Bollinger Machine Shop and Shipyard, Inc.
    No. 2014-C-1091.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 12, 2014.
   In re Bollinger Shipyards Inc., formerly Bollinger Machine Shop and Shipyard Inc.; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of La-fourche, 17th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 101102; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2013 CA 1638.

Denied.

WEIMER, J., recused.

CLARK, J., would grant.


text:
    Sandra HUNTER, Individually, et al. v. CHRISTUS HEALTH CENTRAL LOUISIANA, etc.
    No. 2014-C-1099.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 12, 2014.
   In re Christus Health Central Louisiana d/b/a Christus St. Frances Cabrini Hospital; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Rap-ides, 9th Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 229736; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 13-1057.

Denied.


text:
    David AKERS, dba Air Products Company v. BERNHARD MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS, INC., A & R General Contractors, Inc., and the City of Shreveport.
    No. 2014-C-1100.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 12, 2014.
   In re David Akers D/B/A Air Products Company; — Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Div. 1, No. 535,740; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 48,871-CA.

Denied.


text:
    Placide J. JUMONVILLE, III v. CITY OF KENNER and Kenner Mayor Michael S. Yenni.
    No. 2014-C-1101.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 12, 2014.
   In re Jumonville, III, Placide J.; — Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. J, No. 725-730; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 13-CA-793.

Denied.


text:
    David AKERS, dba Air Products Company v. BERNHARD MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS, INC., A & R General Contractors, Inc., and the City of Shreveport.
    No. 2014-C-1103.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 12, 2014.
   In re Bernhard Mechanical Contractors Inc.; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Div. 1, No. 535,-740; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 48,871-CA.

Denied.


text:
    Catherine Green ALLEN v. William Timothy ALLEN, IV.
    No. 2014-CC-1108.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 12, 2014.
   In re Allen IV, William Timothy; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Div. F, No. 571,063; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 49305-CW.

Denied.

HUGHES, J., would grant.


text:
    Mary Beth WILLEM, Albert J. Zahn and Thomas E. Zahn, as Representatives of the Estate of their Mother, Nedra Zahn v. LOUISIANA MEDICAL MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY and Melvin L. Parnell, Jr., M.D.
    No. 2014-CC-1424.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 12, 2014.
   In re Louisiana Medical Mutual Insur-anee Company et al.; Melvin L. Parnell, Jr., M.D.; — Defendant(s); Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. L, No. 705-105; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 14-C-350.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Raymond RIEGO v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2014-KH-1468.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 12, 2014.
   In re Riego, Raymond; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. N, No. 12-1010; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 14-K-371.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Roger HART v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2014-KH-1495.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 12, 2014.
   In re Hart, Roger; — Plaintiff; Applying For, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. H, No. 13-191; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 14-K-390.

Denied. Moot. The district court has acted.


text:
    Mark William BOURNE v. Linda Bombardier BOURNE.
    No. 2014-CJ-1791.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 12, 2014.
   In re Bourne, Mark William; — Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. L, No. 98-14678; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2013 CU 2170.

' Denied.

HUGHES, J„ recused.


text:
    Marie B. Rhodes, Wife of/and Ronald Anthony RHODES, Sr. v. Tristan R. SCHULTIS, M.D.
    No. 2014-C-1081.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 12, 2014.
   In re Schultis, M.D., Tristan R.; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. O, No. 523-036; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 2013-CA-663.

Denied.

VICTORY, J., would grant.


text:
    Melanie L. TROSCLAIR v. Mona R. JOSEPH, Tom Schedler, in his Official Capacity as Louisiana Secretary of State, Eliana Defrancesch in her Official Capacity as Clerk of Court for St. John the Baptist Parish.
    No. 2014-C-1920.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 12, 2014.
   In re Joseph, Mona R.; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of St. John, 40th Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 67000; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 14-CA-675.

Not considered. Not timely filed. La. R.S. § 18:1409(G).


text:
    Harlton K. STANLEY, et al. v. CROWELL & OWENS, LLC.
    No. 2014-C-1739.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 12, 2014.
   In re Machal, L.L.C.; Stanley, Harlton K.; — Plaintiffs); Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Rap-ides, 9th Judicial District Court Div. F, No. 242,568; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 13-1425.

Stay denied. Writ denied.


text:
    STATE in the Interest of N.N.
    No. 2014-CK-1938.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 15, 2014.
    Rehearing Denied Sept. 25, 2014.
   In re State of Louisiana; — Other; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Juvenile Court Orleans Parish, No. 2014-202-04-DQ-F; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2014-C-098S.

Writ granted. The ruling of the trial court excluding the testimony of criminalist William Giblin as a sanction for the State’s discovery violation is reversed and the matter is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this order.


text:
    LOUISIANA BOARD OF ETHICS v. Ralph WILSON.
    No. 2014-C-1908.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 15, 2014.
    Prior report: La.App., — So.3d-, 2014 WL 4413227.
   In re Louisiana Board of Ethics; — Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Natchitoches, 10th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 87173; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 14-925.

Denied.

VICTORY, J., would grant.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Jermeny MARSH.
    No. 2014-KK-1925.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 16, 2014.
   In re Marsh, Jermeny; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. 2, No. 546-976; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2014-K-0956.

Denied.

HUGHES, J., would grant.


text:
    Lee W. RAND, et al. v. CITY OF NEW ORLEANS.
    No. 2014-OC-1901.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 17, 2014.
   In re City of New Orleans; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div B, No. 2011-7094.

Denied.

WEIMER, GUIDRY and CLARK, JJ., would grant.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Joseph LAMBERT.
    No. 2014-KK-1952.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 18, 2014.
   In re State of Louisiana; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. E, No. 519-880; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2014-K-0820.

Stay denied; writ denied.


text:
    CRESCENT PROPERTY PARTNERS, LLC v. AMERICAN MANUFACTURERS MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Bison Building Materials Of Texas, Inc., et al. Greystar Development and Construction, LP v. Crescent Property Partners, LLC, Bison Building Materials of Texas, Inc., et al. Bison Building Materials of Texas, Inc., Bistrol Fiberlite Industries, Inc., Champion Window, Inc., et al. v. Greystar Development and Construction, LP.
    No. 2014-C-0969.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 19, 2014.
   In re American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance Company; Greystar Development and Construction L.P.; — Defendants); Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, American Arbitration Association, No. 69 110 J 006 75 08; CM District Court Div. F, No 11-12669 C/W 12-10384 C/W 12-10409; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Nos. 2013-CA-0661, 2013-CA-0662, 2013-CA-0663.

Granted.


text:
    CRESCENT PROPERTY PARTNERS, LLC v. AMERICAN MANUFACTURERS MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Bison Building Materials of Texas, Inc., et al. Greystar Development and Construction, LP v. Crescent Property Partners, LLC, Bison Building Materials of Texas, Inc., et al. Bison Building Materials of Texas, Inc., Bristol Fiberlite Industries, Inc., Champion Window, Inc., et al. v. Greystar Development and Construction, LP.
    No. 2014-C-0973.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 19, 2014.
   In re Bison Building Materials of Texas, Inc.; Champion Window; Delta Construction; Floor Crete Enterprises; Nationwide Gutter, Inc.; Panel Truss of Texas, Inc.; SLI Framing, Inc.; Southern Stucco, Inc.; — Defendant(s); Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. F, No. 2011-12669 C/W 2012-10384 C/W 2012-10409; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2013-CA-0661 C/W 2013-CA-0662 C/W 2013-CA-0663.

Granted.


text:
    Martin PADIAL and Andree Padial v. George F. WEBB, George Webb Homes, LLC, Craig Duos and Southeast Engineers, LLC, John Craig Duos, and George Webb, III.
    No. 2014-CC-0972.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 19, 2014.
   In re James River Insurance Company; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 594610; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2014 CW 0207.

Granted. The case is remanded to the district court for reconsideration in light of Gorman v. City of Opelousas, 13-1734 (La.7/1/14), 148 So.3d. 888, 2014 WL 2937129

JOHNSON, C.J., and KNOLL and HUGHES, JJ., would deny.


text:
    In re Appeal of The DISCIPLINARY BOARD NO. 13-PDB-120.
    No. 2014-OB-1527.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 19, 2014.
   In re Robinson, Derrick Wayne; — Plaintiff; Applying For Appeal of the Decision of the Disciplinary Board Office of Disciplinary Board, No. 13-PDB-120.

Not considered. Not timely filed. See Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 30(C).


text:
    In re Appeal of the Decision of the DISCIPLINARY BOARD NO. 13-PDB-133.
    No. 2014-OB-1346.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 19, 2014.
   In re Henderson, Lisa; — Plaintiff; Applying For Appeal of the Decision of the Disciplinary Board Office of Disciplinary Board, No. 13-PDB-133.

Leave to appeal denied.


text:
    In re Appeal of the Decision of the DISCIPLINARY BOARD NO. 14-PDB-015.
    No. 2014-OB-1438.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 19, 2014.
   In re Broussard-Scher, Carla; — Plaintiff; Applying For Appeal of the Decision of the Disciplinary Board Office of Disciplinary Board, No. 14-PDB-015.

Leave to appeal denied.


text:
    In re Appeal of the Decision of the DISCIPLINARY BOARD NO. 14-PDB-013.
    No. 2014-OB-1457.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 19, 2014.
   In re Broussard-Scher, Carla; — Plaintiff; Applying For Appeal of the Decision of the Disciplinary Board Office of Disciplinary Board, No. 14-PDB-013.

Leave to appeal denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Michael MACK v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2013-KH-2380.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 19, 2014.
   In re Mack, Michael; — Plaintiff; Applying for Reconsideration of this Court’s action dated May 30, 2014, Parish of Lincoln, 3rd Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 44,716, 47,099; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 48,706-KH.

Reconsideration denied.


text:
    Malik Alqadr IHSAAN v. BLUE RIBBON FOOD STORES OF BATON ROUGE, et al.
    No. 2013-CP-2403.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 19, 2014.
   In re Ihsaan, Malik Alqadr; — Plaintiff; Applying for Reconsideration of this court’s action dated July 3, 2014 Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. I, No. 446248; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2013-CW-0118.

Reconsideration denied. No further filings in this matter shall be accepted.

HUGHES, Justice, would grant.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Albert LANDRY v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2011-KH-0796.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 19, 2014.
   In re State of Louisiana; — Defendant; Applying for Rehearing of this Court’s action dated January 18, 2013; Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. E, No. 256-545.

Denied. The state’s application for reconsideration in this matter is moot. This Court’s per curiam opinion in State ex rel. Landry v. State, 2011-0796 (La.1/18/13), 106 So.3d 106, was recalled as improvidently granted in State v. Landry, 13-1171 (La.6/20/14), 142 So.3d 9. As noted in that ruling, the district court did not err when it denied relator’s Motion to Correct an Illegal Sentence. See State v. Tate, 12-2763 (La.11/5/13); 130 So.3d 829, cert. denied, Tate v. Louisiana, — U.S. —, 134 S.Ct. 2663, 189 L.Ed.2d 214 (2014).


text:
    Virgil MASON, et al. v. EXCO OPERATING COMPANY, LP and Ozark Properties, LLC.
    No. 2014-C-426.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 19, 2014.
   In re R. Kenneth Jeane and Suzanne W. Jeane; — Defendants; Applying for Rehearing of this Court’s action dated May 23, 2014, Parish of Jackson, 2nd Judicial District Court Div. A, No. C-32,235; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 48,-713-CA.

Rehearing denied.

WEIMER, Justice, would grant and docket.

HUGHES, Justice, would grant.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Robert E. MACK, Jr. v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2013-KH-2302.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 19, 2014.
   In re Mack Jr., Robert E.; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Caldwell, 37th Judicial District Court Div. O, No. 67,656; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 48671-KH.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Deondra Dejohn JOHNSON.
    No. 2013-KO-2741.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 19, 2014.
   In re Johnson, Deondra Dejohn; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Terrebonne, 32nd Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 572,670; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2013 KA 0342.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Stanford Dewayne STATON v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2014-KH-0028.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 19, 2014.
   In re Staton, Stanford Dewayne; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Sabine, 11th Judicial District Court Div. O, No. 03-CR-057658; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KH 13-00961.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Rodney MASON v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2014-KH-0030.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 19, 2014.
   In re Mason, Rodney; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. John, 40th Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 06-CR-368; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 13-KH-910.

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. Willie JOSEPH v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2014-KH-0031.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 19, 2014.
   In re Joseph, Willie; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Landry, 27th Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 09-550-D; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Nos. KH 12-00602, KH 13-00908.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Darryl Paul SYLVESTER v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2014-KH-0038.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 19, 2014.
   In re Sylvester, Darryl Paul; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Terrebonne, 32nd Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 601,199; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2012 KA1846.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Harold L. FREE v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2014-KH-0039.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 19, 2014.
   In re Free, Harold L.; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Div. 3, No. 289,428; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 48,-260-KA.

Denied. Relator may seek post-conviction relief pursuant to La.C.Cr.P. art. 924 et seq.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Charles STEWART v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2014-KH-0041.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 19, 2014.
   In re Stewart, Charles; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. John, 40th Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 99-567; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 13-KH-795.

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

HUGHES, J., would grant.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Lionel EDWARDS v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2014-KH-0044.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 19, 2014.
   In re Edwards, Lionel; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. I, No. 80-1261.

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. Alvin R. GREEN v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2014-KH-0045.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 19, 2014.
   In re Green, Alvin R.; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. I, No. 463-654; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2013-K-1602.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Paul ROBBINS v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2014-KH-0046.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 19, 2014.
   In re Robbins, Paul; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Webster, 26th Judicial District Court Div. F, No. 74,142; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 49,-016-KH.

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


text:
    STATE ex rel. Derrick D. DAVIS v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2014-KH-0047.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 19, 2014.
   In re Davis, Derrick D.; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. F, No. 612,771; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2013 CA 0654.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Albert PUGH, Jr. v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2014-KH-0048.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 19, 2014.
   In re Pugh, Albert Jr.; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Landry, 27th Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 02K4564; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KH 13-00941.

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. 930.4(D).


text:
    STATE ex rel. Edward Rat TROTTER, Jr., v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2014-KH-0049.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 19, 2014.
   In re Trotter Jr., Edward Ray; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Div. 5, No. 205,540; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 48,-950-KH.

Denied.

HUGHES, J., would grant.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Vincent Mark CASTILLO v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2014-KH-0052.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 19, 2014.
   In re Castillo, Vincent Mark; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. J, No. 12-270; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 13-KH-869.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Simpson WRIGHT v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2014-KH-0068.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 19, 2014.
   In re Wright, Simpson; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 08-1124; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 13-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; State v. Parker, 98-0256 (La.5/8/98), 711 So.2d 694; La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.3; State ex rel Melinie v. State, 93-1380 (La.1/12/96), 665 So.2d 1172.


text:
    Ulysses THOMAS v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2014-KH-0083.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 19, 2014.
   In re Thomas, Ulysses; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. H, No. 00-6195; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 13-KH-880.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Dominick VILLAFRANCO v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2014-KH-0085.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 19, 2014.
   In re Villafranco, Dominick; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. D, No. 513-571; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2013-K-1501.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Darryl NICHOLAS v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2014-KH-0086.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 19, 2014.
   In re Nicholas, Darryl; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 74-311; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 13-KH-1000.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Lourele ROBERTS v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2014-KH-0103.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 19, 2014.
   In re Roberts, Lourele; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Ouachita, 4th Judicial District Court Div. B, Nos. 96F1257, 96F1588; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 48,683-KH.

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


text:
    STATE ex rel. Kirk WILLIAMS v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2014-KH-0104.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 19, 2014.
   In re Williams, Kirk; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div, A, No. 472-312; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2013-K-1661.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Allen Ray ARKANSAS v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2014-KH-0105.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 19, 2014.
   In re Arkansas, Allen Ray; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Div. 5, No. 290,411; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 48,-960-KH.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Cabrini HARRIS v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2014-KH-0106.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 19, 2014.
   In re Harris, Cabrini; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Rapides, 9th Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 224327; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KH 13-00992.

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. Gerald DAHLEM v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2014-KH-0111.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 19, 2014.
   In re Dahlem, Gerald; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Washington, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 10-CR1-108537; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2013 KW 1434.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Jessie James DUPLANTIS.
    No. 2014-KH-0283.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 19, 2014.
   In re Duplantis, Jessie James; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Vermilion, 15th Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 53049; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 13-424.

Denied.

HUGHES, J., would grant.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Robert TASSIN.
    No. 2014-K-0284.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 19, 2014.
   In re Tassin, Robert; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. L, No. 86-3579; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 11-KA-1144.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Robert TASSIN v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2014-KH-0287.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 19, 2014.
   In re Tassin, Robert; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. L, No. 86-3579; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 11-KA-1144.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Keith FRANKLIN, Sr.
    No. 2014-KO-0337.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 19, 2014.
   In re Franklin Sr., Keith; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Ouachita, 4th Judicial District Court Div. C, No. ll-F-2983; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 48,781-KA.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Derrick George GORDY.
    No. 2014-KO-0346.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 19, 2014.
   In re Gordy, Derrick George; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. J, No. 10-09-0544; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2013 KA 0702.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Willie DORSEY.
    No. 2014-KO-0378.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 19, 2014.
   In re Dorsey, Willie; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Washington, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. G, No. 07-CR8-97362; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2012 KA 1816.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. William DANASTASIO.
    No. 2014-K-0384.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 19, 2014.
   In re Danastasio, William; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. C, No. 503-075; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Nos. 2012-KA-1157, 2012-KA-1157.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Donte FIELDING.
    No. 2014-K-0392.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 19, 2014.
   In re Fielding, Donte; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Bienville, 2nd Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 28234; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 48,524-KA.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Eddie L. JACKSON.
    No. 2014-KO-0394.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 19, 2014.
   In re Jackson, Eddie L.; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court, No. 293,902; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 48,552-KA.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Kedrick JOHNSON.
    No. 2014-KO-0410.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 19, 2014.
   In re Johnson, Kedrick; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. H, No. 494-634; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2013-KA-0417.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Amber Lee BUTLER.
    No. 2014-KO-0414.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 19, 2014.
   In re Butler, Amber Lee; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Washington, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. G, No. 11 CR8 114150; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2012 KA 1815.

Denied.

JOHNSON, C.J., and WEIMER and HUGHES, JJ., would grant.


text:
    Breann McGREGOR v. DR. David CUROLE and Jefferson Ob/Gyn, L.L.C.
    No. 2014-CC-0974.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 19, 2014.
   In re Louisiana Medical Mutual Insurance Company; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. H, No. 698-602; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 14-C-158.

Denied.

KNOLL, CLARK and HUGHES, JJ., would grant.


text:
    Patrick BARTON, et al. v. AVOYELLES PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, et al.
    No. 2014-CC-0989.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 19, 2014.
    Prior report: La.App., — So.3d-, 2014 WL 1382549.
   In re National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pa.; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Avoyelles, 12th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 2010-5032; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 13-445.

Denied.

VICTORY and CLARK, JJ., would grant.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Zebulun Monroe KENNEDY.
    No. 2014-KK-1109.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 19, 2014.
   In re Kennedy, Zebulun Monroe; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Livingston, 21st Judicial District Court Div. F, No. 029607 and 104357; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2014 KW 0494.

Denied.

VICTORY and HUGHES, JJ., would grant.


text:
    Janie JONES, Individually and on Behalf of her Minor Daughter, Destinee Jones v. Dr. William BLACK and Louisiana Medical Mutual Insurance Company.
    No. 2014-C-1116.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 19, 2014.
   In re Black M.D., William G. et al.; Louisiana Medical Mutual Insurance Company; — Defendant(s); Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Tan-gipahoa, 21st Judicial District Court Div. F, No. 90-01092; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2013 CA 1889.

Denied.

HUGHES, J., recused.


text:
    SUCCESSION OF George MATTHEWS Succession of George Matthews.
    No. 2014-C-1121.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 19, 2014.
   In re Gauche, Judy Maryland et al.; Maryland, Donald; Maryland, Kenney; Maryland, Kernall; Maryland, Michael; Rollins, Randolph; — Other(s); Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Terrebonne, 32nd Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 6222 C/W1758; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2013 CA 1325 C/W 2013 CA 1326.

Denied.

HUGHES, J., would grant.


text:
    Dorothy WILLIS v. AMERICAN EAGLE AIRLINES, INC., Ray Tolbert and ABC Insurance Company.
    No. 2014-C-1123.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 19, 2014.
    Prior report: La.App., 2014 WL 3559377.
   In re Willis, Dorothy; — Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. I, No. 592,845; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2013 CA1369.

Denied.


text:
    SUCCESSION OF Craig Michael KRONLAGE.
    No. 2014-OC-1125.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 19, 2014.
    Prior report: La.App., 2014 WL 1775627.
   In re Kronlage, Bridgette Chandler;— Other; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. A, No. 2012-09765; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2014-CA-0208.

Denied.

HUGHES, J., would grant.


text:
    Willie HARLOW v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY.
    No. 2014-CC-1128.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 19, 2014.
   In re State Farm Fire & Casualty Company; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Red River, 39th Judicial District Court Div. O, No. 35,681; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 48,676-CW.

Denied.

VICTORY, J., would grant.


text:
    John E. SPELLMAN v. Sheriff Newell NORMAND, Dr. Green, Health Care Correct and Parish of Jefferson Correctional Center, et al.
    No. 2014-CP-1143.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 19, 2014.
   In re Spellman, John E.; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 734862; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 14-C-270.

Denied.

See Louisiana Revised Statute 13:3715.1

VICTORY, J., would grant.

HUGHES, J., concurs.