text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Albert Norman PIERRE.
    No. 2013-KP-0873.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 15, 2013.

      District Attorney’s Office, Terrebonne Parish, Joseph L. Waltz, District Attorney, Ellen Daigle Doskey, Assistant District Attorney, for Applicant.
    Public Defender’s Office, Thirty Second Judicial District, Kerry Patrick Byrne, Heather Jane Peth Fairchild, for Respondent.
   PER CURIAM.

hWe granted the state’s application to review the decision of the district court providing respondent with post-conviction relief from his conviction and sentence for aggravated rape in violation of La.R.S. 14:42. For the reasons that follow, the judgment below is vacated and respondent’s conviction and sentence are reinstated.

The state charged respondent with aggravated rape on the basis of allegations made by C.C., the granddaughter of Gayle Ardoin, respondent’s live-in partner, that respondent had repeatedly abused her sexually over the course of the several years she lived in the home with the permission of her legal guardian, Paula Martinez, Gayle Ardoiris sister. C.C.’s fortuitous revelations of respondent’s conduct during a visit to her father in 2006 led to her removal from the Ardoin household when she was 12 years old. After living with her father and his wife, C.C.’s stepmother, for approximately two months, and then moving back in with Martinez for a month, C.C. moved next door to the residence occupied by Martinez’s daughter and Ar-doin’s niece, Chantell Percle, whom C.C. referred to as her “nanny,” and her husband, Michael Percle. C.C. was still living with the Percies at the time of respondent’s trial in June 2008.

|2To bolster C.C.’s testimony at trial detailing the respondent’s intense sexual abuse of her over the years, the state called three other witnesses to underscore for jurors respondent’s lustful disposition toward, and highly inappropriate behavior with, young females, although nothing he did with them approached his conduct with C.C. The state also elicited testimony from Detective Cher Pitre, lead investigator in the case, that C.C.’s revelations described a classic “grooming” scenario in which child sex abusers ingratiate themselves with their victims by giving them gifts, becoming their friends, and soothing them when another adult disciplines them as a gateway to escalating their sexual advances from mere touching to sexual intercourse. Pitre had known C.C. since the age of three, when the detective interviewed her in the course of investigating allegations that C.C.’s father had been sexually abusing young girls. Pitre acknowledged that C.C. gave a statement to the effect that her father had put his penis in her “coonie.” The detective discounted the statement as obviously coached and the subsequent conviction of C.C.’s father and his registration as a sex offender did not involve any conduct with his daughter.

In his own testimony, respondent flatly denied sexually abusing C.C. and attributed her allegations of abuse to resentment over the fact that as she grew older and became increasingly ungovernable, beyond the capacity of Ardoin to manage, as evidenced by C.C.’s chronic truancy from school, he stepped in and became the disciplinarian in the Ardoin household. Respondent testified that on the day C.C. went to the police with her allegations against him, he had consulted an assistant district attorney in the Office of Youth Development about her behavior and what steps were available to him to bring her under control. Ardoin also attested to C.C.’s increasingly volatile behavior and suggested that something else altogether may have been going on with her granddaughter. Ardoin recalled |sthat on one occasion when she visited the Percle residence and called out for her granddaughter, C.C. and Michael Percle stumbled out of a bedroom. C.C. was adjusting her underwear and skirt and Percle was looking nervous. When Ardoin asked what was going on, they replied, “We was playing.” As the prosecutor, assistant district attorney Mark Rhodes, acknowledged, by way of making the point on cross-examination that Ardoin did nothing about the incident and did not report it because she was a less than attentive guardian of C.C., “What you saw by any reasonable standard sounds like a young girl who’s being sexually involved with an adult man....”

In her own testimony, however, C.C. recalled for jurors that when she was 12 years old, respondent had sent her for a medical examination to determine whether she had become sexually active. The nurse practitioner who conducted a general medical examination took C.C. at her word that she was not sexually active and did not attempt more detailed physical findings. C.C.’s testimony prompted the prosecutor to ask whether she had in fact been “sexually active other than the things that Norman had done to you,” to which C.C. replied, “No.”

The jury trial conducted in June 2008 ended in a verdict of guilty as charged. Jurors thereby rejected defense counsel’s argument that respondent had, in effect, become an unwitting pawn in an intra-family custody dispute in which C.C. used allegations of sexual abuse to facilitate her perceived interests in where and how she wanted to live, making use of her skills at dissembling and manipulating she first displayed at the age of three when she falsely accused her own father of rape. The court sentenced respondent on July 18, 2008 to the mandatory term of life imprisonment at hard labor without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence. The court of appeal affirmed respondent’s conviction and sentence, State v. Pierre, 09-0454 (La.App. 1 Cir. 9/11/09), 17 So.3d 519 (unpub’d), and this Court denied review. State v. Pierre, 09-2267 (La.4/16/10), 31 So.3d 1054.

During pendency of respondent’s appeal, two events occurred that shaped the post-conviction proceedings initiated after this Court denied writs on direct review. In February 2009, C.C. reported to the police that she and a girlfriend had been riding around with a teenage boy, B.B., they had just met and that he had forced both of them to perform sexual acts. An arrest warrant issued for B.B., but only days after she made the complaint, C.C. met with prosecutor Rhodes, who had developed a relationship with her over the course of preparing her testimony for respondent’s trial, and.admitted the report was false and that the sex with B.B. was consensual. The warrant for B.B. was never executed. At the end of October 2009, C.C. then revealed, as Gayle Ardoin’s testimony had suggested, that, in fact, Michael Percle had also been sexually abusing her during the same period of time respondent was molesting her. Detective James Daigle investigated the complaint and on November 5, 2009, C.C. was interviewed at the Terrebonne Parish Children’s Advocacy Center, where she had also been interviewed after revealing respondent’s abuse of her. The investigation did not result in the arrest or prosecution of Michael Percle and Detective Daigle closed his file at the end of the year.

C.C.’s allegations against Michael Percle resurfaced, however, in Claim Three of an application for post-conviction relief filed by respondent in 2011. The application quoted directly from a letter prosecutor Rhodes had written to respondent’s appellate counsel on March 23, 2011. The letter advised counsel that while C.C. had denied at trial sexual activity with anyone other than respondent, she had subsequently made allegations against a third party (Percle), “stating that the two molestations ... overlapped.” The letter further advised counsel that he | shad agreed with the detective handling the case they did not have “near enough to make an arrest” because the victim “is a very troubled young girl and comes from a dysfunctional family,” who had been placed in therapy “to determine whether she would recant the story about the third party molestation.” Rhodes also acknowledged, however, that to date, “she had continued to state that she was molested by this third party.” The upshot of these revelations in the March 2011 letter, post-conviction counsel asserted in his Claim Three, was that “[t]his fact, which could not have been introduced at trial, coupled with the fact that C.C.’s father is a convicted child molester and that C.C. contends that two men very close to her, both of whom have served as father figures in her life, both molested her during the same time period, is highly probative and damaging to C.C.’s credibility and would have very likely caused the jury to render a different verdict.”

At the post-conviction hearings conducted on August 8 and August 9, 2012, various witnesses testified, including C.C., Rhodes, and Detective Daigle. Rhodes and Daigle recalled putting their heads together and deciding that the detective needed something more before pursuing C.C.’s claims against Percle. Daigle testified that at the time, he “was not familiar at all with Mr. Pierre’s case” because he had not been involved in respondent’s prosecution. The detective thus did not appreciate the implications of C.C.’s claims against Percle for respondent’s own case, and other than the investigation he conducted through November and December 2009, he did nothing further in the case. “Quite frankly,” Daigle testified, “I perceived some credibility issues.” Rhodes, on the other hand, had prepared C.C.’s testimony for trial and he testified that at the time, she “was always pretty clear that it was a one-perpetrator situation.” Although he deemed the B.B. incident “fairly insignificant,” Rhodes fully understood the implications of C.C.’s allegations against Michael Percle for respondent’s case and thus felt duty | fibound to reveal them to appellate counsel “as soon as I could.” C.C. testified that she did not reveal the abuse at the hands of Percle either before or during respondent’s trial, because she was afraid that if she did so, she would be removed from the home and deprived of her “nanny,” as in fact happened after her interview at the Children’s Advocacy Center. C.C. testified that she decided to come forward when her nieces, ages three and six, began visiting the Percle home and she became afraid that what had happened to her would happen to them. As for the incident involving B.B., C.C.’s girlfriend had made the first complaint and C.C. testified she lied to cover her friend and initially to protect herself.

By the end of the hearings, respondent’s Claim Three had become embroiled in the standard proposed by this Court in State v. Conway, 01-2808 (La.4/12/02), 816 So.2d 290, for free-standing, post-conviction claims of actual innocence not based on DNA evidence. Although this Court declined to hold that such claims are, in fact, cognizable in collateral attacks on final convictions, a question also left open in federal habeas proceedings by the United States Supreme Court in Herrera v. Collins, 506 U.S. 390, 417, 113 S.Ct. 853, 869, 122 L.Ed.2d 203 (1993), we observed that such claims must necessarily involve “new, material, noncumulative and conclusive evidence which meets an extraordinarily high standard, and which undermine[s] the prosecution’s entire case.” Conway, 01-2808 at 1, 816 So.2d at 291 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). For the state, the Percle allegations- went only to C.C.’s credibility and not to actual innocence. Respondent’s counsel acknowledged that “the case of Conway does talk about a claim of actual innocence,” and conceded that “we are certainly not providing a hundred percent proof of actual innocence .... it cannot be done without DNA.... [or] putting this man in another country ... for years- when these allegations occurred.”. Counsel emphasized, however, that respondent was “not arguing that |7MichaeI Percle molested her, and [B.B.] molested her, and-she’s confused about who was molesting her.” Instead, counsel argued that C.C. “makes delayed allegations, that she makes false allegations and this calls her truthfulness into question, and it is her truthfulness and her statements which are the crux of the trial and the conviction of Mr. Pierre.” Counsel thus deemed that “[w]e have hit the Conway standard” by providing “new, material ... non-cumulative, conclusive evidence,” not amounting to “actual proof of actual innocence, but ... enough to put in front of a jury for a new trial, which would be a fair trial for Mr. Pierre based on this newly discovered evidence.”

The argument persuaded the district court that respondent had in fact made a successful claim under the Conway standard. Pretermitting respondent’s other claims, the court granted post-conviction relief on Claim Three because “[t]he evidence adduced at the [post-conviction] hearing, including but not limited to the child victim’s post-trial recanting of her prior denials under oath of having been abused by others, one of whom she now accuses of abusing her during the same time periods involved in his case and the other of whom she falsely accused, at the very least undermines the prosecution’s entire case and deprived the defendant of being able to use the information to cross-examine her at the trial.” The First Circuit denied review summarily. State v. Pierre, 13-0150 (La.App. 1 Cir. 4/5/13) (Crain, J., dissenting with reasons).

In his brief to this Court, post-conviction counsel concedes that, in fact, respondent did not meet the Conway standard and that the district court “improvidently found that Respondent made a bona fide claim of actual innocence.” Counsel nevertheless argues that the court reached the correct result for an entirely different reason. It was clear from Detective Daigle’s testimony at the post-conviction hearing that investigation of the Michael Percle allegations 18came to an end at the close of 2009 and that his conversation with Rhodes must therefore have occurred during that time. Counsel argues that Rhodes in effect sat on the information for well over a year and that when he finally disclosed it to appellate counsel, not to trial counsel or to respondent himself, on March 23, 2011, the time for filing a motion for a new trial on grounds of newly discovered evidence had grown so short that respondent was effectively denied the opportunity to move for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence pursuant to La.C.Cr.P. art. 851(3). Counsel takes as his premise that the one-year period for filing motions for a new trial on grounds of newly discovered evidence provided by La. C.Cr.P. art. 853 began to run from the date of finality of his conviction and sentence, April 16, 2010, when this Court denied review of the First Circuit’s decision. Counsel argues that the delayed disclosure deprived respondent of due process and alone justified the trial court’s grant of post-conviction relief.

Counsel did not make this argument in the district court but as the proponent of the court’s judgment granting respondent post-conviction relief and a new trial, he is entitled to assert any ground fairly supported by the record as a basis for upholding that judgment. State v. Butler, 12-2359, pp. 4-5 (La.5/17/13), 117 So.3d 87, 89. The district court nevertheless erred in its ruling for two reasons. First, as respondent now readily concedes, the present case is not the one for this Court to decide definitively that free-standing claims of actual innocence not based on DNA evidence are cognizable in state post-conviction proceedings. Cf. House v. Bell, 547 U.S. 518, 554-55, 126 S.Ct. 2064, 2086-87, 165 L.Ed.2d 1 (2006) (“House urges the Court to answer the question left open in Herrera and hold not only that freestanding innocence claims are possible but also that he has established one. We decline to resolve the issue. We conclude here, much as in Herrera, that whatever burden in a hypothetical freestanding innocence claim |flwould require, this petitioner has not satisfied it.”). Because this Court has never actually implemented the Conway standard, we have not clarified whether it requires a petitioner not simply to undermine the state’s entire case but also to prove that he or she is probably factually innocent. See, e.g., Carriger v. Stewart, 132 F.3d 463, 476-77 (9th Cir.1997) (“Requiring affirmative proof of innocence is appropriate, because when a petitioner makes a freestanding claim of innocence, he is claiming that he is entitled to relief despite a constitutionally , valid conviction .... In light of the presumption of guilt that attaches after a constitutionally valid conviction, ‘it is fair to place on [a petitioner asserting a freestanding claim of innocence] the burden of proving his innocence, not just raising doubt about his guilt.’ ”) (quoting Herrera, 506 U.S. at 443, 113 S.Ct. at 883) (Blackmun, J., dissenting); Gould v. Commissioner of Correction, 301 Conn. 544, 22 A.3d 1196, 1206 (2011) (“Our use of the term ‘actual innocence’ is of paramount significance. Actual innocence also referred to as factual innocence is different than legal innocence. Actual innocence is not demonstrated merely by showing that there was insufficient evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”) (internal citation omitted).

At a minimum, -however, the Conway standard requires the petitioner to satisfy the test of actual innocence established by the United States Supreme Court as the gateway for considering in federal habeas corpus review of final state court convictions claims of constitutional error otherwise proeedurally barred by state law or by expiration of a statute of limitations. McQuiggin v. Perkins, 569 U.S.-, 133 S.Ct. 1924, 185 L.Ed.2d 1019 (2013); House v. Bell, supra; Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298, 115 S.Ct. 851, 130 L.Ed.2d 808 (1995). Although that standard does not require the habeas petitioner to prove factual innocence as if it were a freestanding claim, “tenable actual-innocence gateway pleas are rare: ‘a | )0petitioner does not meet the threshold requirement unless he persuades the district court that, in light of the new evidence, no juror, acting reasonably, would have voted to find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.’ ” McQuiggin, 569 U.S. at-, 133 S.Ct. at 1928 (quoting Schlup, 513 U.S. at 329, 115 S.Ct. at 868). Under this gateway standard, “the newly presented evidence may indeed call into question the credibility of the witnesses presented at trial. In such a case, the habeas court may have to make some credibility assessments.” Schlup, 513 U.S. at 330, 115 S.Ct. at 868. A credible gateway claim nevertheless requires “ ‘new reliable evidence — whether it be exculpatory scientific evidence, trustworthy eyewitness accounts, or critical physical evidence— that was not presented at trial.’ ” House, 547 U.S at 537, 126 S.Ct. at 2077 (quoting Schlup, 513 U.S. at 324, 115 S.Ct. at 865).

At this extraordinary level, respondent must show in the present case more than a probability that reasonable jurors might divide over the question of C.C.’s credibility in light of the new evidence. As respondent readily concedes, he lacks new reliable scientific evidence, eyewitness testimony, or critical physical evidence of such persuasiveness that no reasonable juror would have convicted in light of the new evidence that did not, in any event, amount to C.C.’s repudiation of any of her trial testimony against him. And, as the state has argued throughout these post-conviction proceedings, respondent has not made an affirmative case of “conclusive exoneration.” House, 547 U.S. at 553, 126 S.Ct. at 2086.

Second, respondent has also failed to show that he was deprived of the opportunity to file a motion for new trial on grounds of newly discovered evidence and thereby deprived of a lower standard of materiality than Conway requires because his new evidence, even if not establishing actual innocence, “would probably have changed the verdict or judgment of guilty” had it been introduced at |ntrial. La. C.Cr.P. art. 851(8); see State v. Prudholm, 446 So.2d 729, 736 (La.1984) (“The trial judge’s duty [under art. 851(8) ] is not to weigh the new evidence as though he were a jury determining guilt or innocence, rather his duty is the narrow one of ascertaining whether there is new material fit for a new jury’s judgment.”); see also State v. Cavalier, 96-3052, pp, 3-4 (La.10/31/97), 701 So.2d 949, 951 (“Newly discovered evidence affecting only a witness’s credibility ‘ordinarily will not support a motion for a new trial, because new evidence which is merely cumulative or impeaching is not, according to the often-repeated statement of the courts, an adequate basis for the grant of a new trial.’ Nevertheless, the court possesses the discretion to grant a new trial when the witness’s testimony is essentially uncorroborated and dispositive of the question of guilt or innocence and it appears that had the impeaching evidence been introduced, it is likely that the jury would have reached a different result.”) (quoting Mesarosh v. United States, 352 U.S. 1, 9, 77 S.Ct. 1, 5, 1 L.Ed.2d 1 (1956) (other internal quotation marks and citations omitted)). In the present case, the district court appears to have used this lower standard of materiality under the guise of implementing a Conway claim of actual innocence.

We have recognized that a prosecutor’s duty to disclose material exculpatory evidence does not end with a jury’s verdict and that “ ‘after a conviction the prosecutor also is bound by the ethics of his office to inform the appropriate authority of after-acquired or other information that casts doubt upon the correctness of the conviction.’ ” State v. Ortiz, 11-2799, p. 6 (La.1/29/13), 110 So.3d 1029, 1033 (quoting Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 427, n. 25, 96 S.Ct. 984, 993, 47 L.Ed.2d 128 (1976)). Prosecutor Rhodes acknowledged the existence of that duty but we need not resolve whether March 2011 afforded him the first opportunity to disclose the information, or whether, as Detective Daigle’s | ^testimony suggested and respondent argues, he learned of C.C.’s allegations against Michael Percle much earlier, by the end of 2009, and failed to disclose the information promptly. Rhodes was chargeable with knowledge of C.C.’s allegations against Percle because the Terre-bonne Parish Children’s Advocacy Center had conducted the interview of C.C. in respondent’s case and thus was in a position to evaluate the broader implications of her subsequent accusations against Percle in November 2009. See Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263, 281, 119 S.Ct. 1936, 1948, 144 L.Ed.2d 286 (1999) (“In order to comply with Brady [v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963) ] ... ‘the individual prosecutor has a duty to learn of any favorable evidence known to the others acting on the government’s behalf in this case, including the police.’ ”) (quoting Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419, 437, 115 S.Ct. 1555, 1567, 131 L.Ed.2d 490 (1995)).

Even assuming, however, that Rhodes had a duty to disclose C.C.’s allegations against Michael Percle as soon as she made them, and wholly apart from the question of whether the new evidence actually satisfied the lower standard of materiality required by La.C.Cr.P. art. 851(3), the time for respondent to file a motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence had already passed. A motion for new trial ordinarily must be filed and disposed of before sentence, but if it is based on newly discovered evidence, the motion may be filed “within one year after verdict or judgment of the trial court, although a sentence has been imposed or a motion for a new trial has been previously filed.” La. C.Cr.P. art. 853. The time limit imposed by art. 853 does not raise any due process concerns. Herrera, 506 U.S. at 409-10, 113 S.Ct. at 864-65 (discussing the divergent time limits at the federal and state level on motions for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence and finding no due process concerns raised by the 60-day limit employed in Texas and 16 other states); State v. Reed, 97-0812, pp. 18-19 (La.App. 1 Cir. 4/8/98), 712 So.2d 572, 582-83 (noting that “it is the legislative prerogative to set reasonable procedural formalities and requirements such as the time limitations provided in article 853,” and rejecting defendant’s claim the one-year limit in art. 853 deprived him of his constitutional rights to judicial review, access to the courts, and due process). The article further provides that “if an appeal is pending the court may hear the motion only on remand of the case.”

In the present case, the jury returned its verdict on June 20, 2008. C.C.’s allegations against Michael Percle came to light at the end of October 2009, and the interview with the Children’s Advocacy Center then took place on November 5, 2009, well over a year after the jury returned its verdict. Article 853 plainly contemplates the filing of a motion for new trial during pendency of an appeal, i.e. at a time when the conviction and sentence are not final. Thus, finality of conviction and sentence on appeal relates only to when the motion may be heard, not when it may be filed. Cf. State v. Bolton, 408 So.2d 250, 254 (La.1981) (phrase “verdict or judgment of the court” in La.C.Cr.P. art. 853 means only “a finding of guilt or innocence,” and thus “does not include sentencing;” rejecting defendant’s claim that a motion for a new trial on grounds of newly discovered evidence filed more than one year after verdict but less than one year after sentencing is timely filed); see also State v. Jackson, 09-0045, pp. 12-13 (La.App. 3 Cir. 10/7/09), 19 So.3d 631, 638-39 (discussing Bolton). The timing of prosecutor Rhodes’s disclosure to respondent’s appellate counsel thus had no bearing on the opportunity of respondent to file a motion for a new'trial based on C.C.’s new allegations against Percle because the time for filing the motion had already run from the date the jury returned its verdict before she made the allegations.

114The passage of time, and not prosecutor Rhodes, thus dictated that respondent cast his lot with the extraordinarily high Conway standard as a basis for overturning his conviction and sentence in state post-conviction proceedings. As respondent readily concedes, he cannot meet that standard. Nor can he possibly show, as a ground for affording him a new trial, that a Confrontation Clause error occurred at trial on the basis of a statement made nearly two years after the fact. The Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment guarantees only “an opportunity for effective cross-examination, not cross-examination that is effective in whatever way, and to whatever extent, the defense may wish.” United States v. Owens, 484 U.S. 554, 559, 108 S.Ct. 838, 842, 98 L.Ed.2d 951 (1988) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

Respondent’s conviction and sentence are therefore reinstated and this case is remanded to the district court for consideration of respondent’s remaining claims for post-conviction relief.

CONVICTION AND SENTENCE REINSTATED; CASE REMANDED


source: Caselaw Access Project

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

license: Public Domain

text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Rosa Lugo MARQUEZ.
    No. 2013-KK-0315.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 15, 2013.
    Public Defender’s Office, Fifteenth Judicial District, Elliott Thomas Brown, Chad Michael Ikerd, for Applicant.
    Department of Justice, State of Louisiana, James D. Caldwell, Attorney General, Colin Andrew Clark, Assistant Attorney General, District Attorney’s Office, Fifteenth Judicial District, Michael Harson, District Attorney, Cynthia Kelly Simon, Assistant District Attorney, for Respondent.
   WEIMER, Justice.

| ,We granted certiorari in this case to determine whether La. R.S. 14:100.13, which punishes as a felony the operation of a motor vehicle by an alien student or nonresident alien without documentation demonstrating lawful presence in the United States, is preempted by federal law under the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Arizona v. United States, — U.S.-, 132 S.Ct. 2492, 183 L.Ed.2d 351 (2012). Finding that- the statute operates in the field of alien registration and is, therefore, preempted by federal law under the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Arizona, we reverse the rulings of the lower courts and render judgment granting the defendant’s motion to quash.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On May 8, 2012, defendant Rosa Lugo Marquez was charged by bill of information with being an alien student and/or a nonresident alien who operated a motor vehicle in the parish of Lafayette without documentation demonstrating that she is lawfully present in the United States, a violation of La. R.S. 14:100.13. 12According to defendant, the charge stems from her involvement in an automobile accident in Lafayette Parish on December 17, 2011. On July 27, 2012, defendant filed a motion to quash the bill of information in which she contended that La. R.S. 14:100.13 is preempted by federal law. Following a hearing on September 13, 2012, the district court denied the motion to quash, finding that because the Louisiana law addresses driving requirements and the law found to be preempted in Arizona “has nothing to do with driving,” La. R.S. 14:100.13 was not preempted.

The defendant applied for review to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit. In a ruling issued January 7, 2013, the court of appeal denied the defendant’s writ application, finding “no error” in the district court’s ruling. State v. Marquez, 12-1316 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1/7/13) (unpub’d.). One member of the appellate panel, Judge Gremillion, dissented, noting that he would have called up the writ for argument. Id.

On defendant’s application, we granted certiorari and consolidated this case for argument with two additional cases from the Third Circuit, which are decided in separate opinions issued contemporaneously with this matter. State v. Ramirez, 12-1245 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1/7/13) (unpub’d.), writ granted, 13-0276 (La.5/3/13), 112 So.3d 851; State v. Sarrabea, 12-1013 (La. App. 3 Cir. 5/1/13), — So.3d-, 2013 WL 1810228, writ granted, 13-1271 (La.6/26/13), 118 So.3d 428.

LAW AND ANALYSIS

For the reasons assigned this day in State v. Sarrabea, 13-1271 (La.10/15/13), 126 So.3d 453, 2013 WL 5788888, we find that despite its laudable goals, La. R.S. 14:100.13 is preempted by federal law. More particularly, we find that the decision of the Supreme Court in Arizona, supra, is both controlling and dispositive of the issue ^presented, and that following Arizona, we are constrained to hold that La. R.S. 14:100.13 operates in the field of alien registration and is, therefore, preempted by federal law under the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution. As a result, we find that the lower courts erred in denying the defendant’s motion to quash the bill of information.

DECREE

The judgments of the lower courts are reversed and set aside, and judgment is hereby rendered granting defendant’s motion to quash.

REVERSED.

VICTORY, Justice, dissents with reasons.

HUGHES, Justice, dissents with reasons.

VICTORY, J.,

dissents.

hi dissent from the majority opinion for the same reasons I dissented this day in State of Louisiana v. Sarrabea, 13-K-1271 (La.10/15/13), 126 So.3d 453, 2013 WL 5788888.

HUGHES, J.,

dissenting.

hi respectfully dissent. Louisiana has passed a law that prohibits non-citizen aliens from driving in Louisiana without documentation showing they are legally present in the United States. The documentation is already required of non-citizen aliens by the federal government. I fail to see how Louisiana’s statute interferes with federal immigration law or involves the status of aliens. Rather, I view it as a legitimate measure to protect the citizens of Louisiana, much the same as requiring drivers to carry liability insurance.

      . State v. Marquez, 13-0315 (La.5/3/13), 112 So.3d851.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Bonifacio RAMIREZ.
    No. 2013-KK-0276.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 15, 2013.
    Public Defender’s Office, Fifteenth Judicial District, Chad Michael Ikerd, for Applicant.
    Louisiana Department of Justice, James D. Caldwell, Attorney General, Colin Andrew Clark, Assistant Attorney General, District Attorney’s Office, Fifteenth Judicial District, Michael Harson, District Attorney, James Nathan Prather, Jr., Assistant District Attorney, for Respondent.
   WEIMER, Justice.

| |We granted certiorari in this case to determine whether La. R.S. 14:100.13, which punishes as a felony the operation of a motor vehicle by an alien student or nonresident alien without documentation demonstrating lawful presence in the United States, is preempted by federal law under the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Arizona v. United States, — U.S.-, 132 S.Ct. 2492, 183 L.Ed.2d 351 (2012). Finding that the statute operates in the field of alien registration and is, therefore, preempted by federal law under the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Arizona, we reverse the rulings of the lower courts and render judgment granting the defendant’s motion to quash.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On August 2, 2012, defendant Bonifacio Ramirez was arrested during a traffic stop in Lafayette Parish for operating a motor vehicle without documentation demonstrating that he is lawfully present in the United States, a violation of La. R.S. 14:100.13. On August 15, 2012, he filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the | {¡district court in which he contended that La. R.S. 14:100.13 is preempted by federal law. He was formally charged by bill of information on August 16, 2012. After posting bond, he was released from the custody of the Lafayette Parish Sheriff and transferred to a federal immigration detention center. Thereafter, at a hearing on September 4, 2012, defendant requested that his habeas corpus petition be considered as a motion to quash the bill of information, since he was no longer in State custody. The State had no objection to this request. After entertaining the arguments of the parties, the district court denied the motion to quash, concluding that “the State does have power to regulate driving in the State.”

The defendant applied for review to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit. In a ruling issued January 7, 2013, the court of appeal denied the defendant’s writ application, finding “no error” in the district court’s ruling. State v. Ramirez, 12-1245 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1/7/13) (unpub’d). One member of the appellate panel, Judge Gremillion, dissented, noting that he would have called up the writ for argument. Id.

On defendant’s application, we granted certiorari and consolidated this case for argument with two additional cases from the Third Circuit, which are decided in separate opinions issued contemporaneously with this matter. State v. Marquez, 12-1316 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1/7/13) (unpub’d), writ granted, 13-0315 (La.5/3/13), 112 So.3d 851; State v. Sarrabea, 12-1013 (La.App. 3 Cir. 5/1/13), - So.3d -, 2013 WL 1810228, writ granted, 13-1271 (La.6/26/13), 118 So.3d 428.

LAW AND ANALYSIS

For the reasons assigned this day in State v. Sarrabea, 13-1271 (La.10/15/13), 126 So.3d 453, 2013 WL 5788888, we find that despite its laudable goals, La. R.S. 14:100.13 is preempted by federal law. More particularly, we find that the decision of the IsSupreme Court in Arizona, supra, is both controlling and dispositive of the issue presented and that, following Arizona, we are constrained to hold that La. R.S. 14:100.13 operates in the field of alien registration and is, therefore, preempted by federal law under the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution. As a result, we find that the lower courts erred in denying the defendant’s motion to quash the bill of information.

DECREE

The judgments of the lower courts are reversed and set aside, and judgment is hereby rendered granting defendant’s motion to quash.

REVERSED.

VICTORY, Justice, dissents with reasons.

HUGHES, Justice, dissents with reasons.

VICTORY, J.,

dissents.

111 dissent from the majority opinion for the same reasons I dissented this day in State of Louisiana v. Sarrabea, 13-K-1271 (La.10/15/13), 126 So.3d 453, 2013 WL 5788888.

HUGHES, J.,

dissenting.

hi respectfully dissent. Louisiana has passed a law that prohibits non-citizen aliens from driving in Louisiana without documentation showing they are legally present in the United States. The documentation is already required of non-citizen aliens by the federal government. I fail to see how Louisiana’s statute interferes with federal immigration law or involves the status of aliens. Rather, I view it as a legitimate measure to protect the citizens of Louisiana, much the same as requiring drivers to carry liability insurance.

      . State v. Ramirez, 13-0276 (La.5/3/13), 112 So.3d 851.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Marquez A. HOLAND.
    No. 2011-K-0974.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 18, 2011.
   In re State of Louisiana; — Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. J, No. 472-295; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2010-KA-0325.

Granted.


text:
    James BRINSON, et al. v. STATE of Louisiana, et al.
    No. 2011-CC-2776.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 17, 2012.
   In re Brinson Jr., James; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson Davis, 31st Judicial District Court Div., No. C-504-99; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CW 11-00800.

Denied.


text:
    In re Appeal of the Decision of the DISCIPLINARY BOARD NOS. 09-PDB-099 and 09-PDB-100.
    No. 2012-OB-0105.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 9, 2012.
   In re Worsley, Desiree; — Plaintiff; Applying For Appeal of the Decision of the Disciplinary Board Office of the Disciplinary Board, Nos. 09-PDB-099, 09-PDB-100.

Leave to appeal denied.


text:
    Landry FONTANILLE, Jr., and Jeanine Fontanille v. Darleen Jacobs LEVY and ABC Insurance Company.
    No. 2012-C-0450.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 13, 2012.
   In re Fontanille Jr., Landry et al.; Fon-tanille, Jeanine; — Plaintiffs); Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. C, No. 2010 — 4602; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2011-CA-0882.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Vincent Mark CASTILLO v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2011-KH-1735.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 20, 2012.
   In re Castillo, Vincent Mark; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, First Parish Court, Nos. F1789838, F1808683, F1808684, F1808685, F1859969, F1859335, F1870547; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 2011-K-0680.

Denied.

KNOLL and WEIMER, JJ., would grant.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. David C. MAHLER.
    No. 2013-K-0687.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 1, 2013.
   In re Mahler, David C.; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. F, No. 392-990; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2011-KA-0857.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Carl D. HALL.
    No. 2013-K-0688.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 1, 2013.
   In re Hall, Carl D.; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. G, No. 400-281; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2012-KA-0785.

Denied.

JOHNSON, C.J., would grant.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Demond CAREY.
    No. 2013-KO-0726.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 1, 2013.
   In re Carey, Demond; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Div. 5, No. 272566; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 47,650-KA.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Karl A. PETERS.
    No. 2013-K-0748.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 1, 2013.
   In re Peters, Karl A.; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. L, No. 491-939; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2012-KA-0929.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Tommy GOOSBY.
    No. 2013-KO-0760.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 1, 2013.
   In re Goosby, Tommy; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Div. 1, No. 277,233; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 47,772-KA.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Wilfred Lee EDWARDS.
    No. 2013-KO-0761.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 1, 2013.
   In re Edwards, Wilfred Lee; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Calcasieu, 14th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 27284-10; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 12-933.

Denied.

WEIMER and HUGHES, JJ., would grant.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Aaron T. JOSEPH.
    No. 2013-K-0784.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 1, 2013.
   In re State of Louisiana; — Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. J, No. 471-573; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2012-KA-1176.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. David DAVIS.
    No. 2013-K-0807.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 1, 2013.
   In re Davis, David; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. B, No. 477-647; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2011-KA-0996.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Cody VEDOL.
    No. 2013-K-0811.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 1, 2013.
   In re Vedol, Cody; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 09-6617; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 12-KA-376.

Denied.

GUIDRY, J., recused.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Demond T. SOLOMON.
    No. 2013-KO-0831.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 1, 2013.
   In re Solomon, Demond T.; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. H, No. 489-816; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2011-KA-1676.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Michael PENNINGTON.
    No. 2013-K-0838.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 1, 2013.
   In re Pennington, Michael; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Tangipahoa, 21st Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 703295; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2012 KA 0804.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Michael L. CURTIS.
    No. 2013-KO-0878.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 1, 2013.
   In re Curtis, Michael L.; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. H, No. 489-816; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2011-KA-1676.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Tyrone D. PORTER v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2013-KH-1053.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 1, 2013.
   In re Porter, Tyrone D.; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Rapides, 9th Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 302,293; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KH 12-01254.

Denied on the showing made.

HUGHES, J., would grant.


text:
    STATE ex. rel. Joseph M. BROWN v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2013-KH-1054.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 1, 2013.
   In re Brown, Joseph M.; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. G, No. 04-04-0373; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2013 KW 0259.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Roy JACKSON v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2013-KH-1118.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 1, 2013.
   In re Jackson, Roy; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Avoyelles, 12th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 162,069; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KH 13-00206.

Denied. Moot. The district court has acted.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Edward Charles JACKSON v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2013-KH-1145.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 1, 2013.
   In re Jackson, Edward Charles; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Rapides, 9th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 282528; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KH 12-00289.

Denied.

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


text:
    STATE ex rel. Robert E. JACKSON, Jr. v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2013-KH-1147.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 1, 2013.
   In re Jackson Jr., Robert E.; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Red River, 39th Judicial District Court Div. O, No. 96366; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 48365-KH.

Denied. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8; State ex rel. Glover v. State, 93-2830 (La.9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189; State v. Parker, 98-0256 (La.5/8/98), 711 So.2d 694; La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.3; State ex rel. Melinie v. State, 93-1380 (La.1/12/96), 665 So.2d 1172.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Leonard JOHNSON v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2013-KH-1158.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 1, 2013.
   In re Johnson, Leonard; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. G, No. 11-71-681.

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. Belinda JOHNSON v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2013-KH-1159.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 1, 2013.
   In re Johnson, Belinda; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. H, No. 505906-1; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2012 KW 1709.

Denied.


text:
    Preston G. DEMOUCHETTE, Jr. v. James M. LeBLANC, Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections.
    No. 2013-CI-1160.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 1, 2013.
   In re Demouchette Jr., Preston G.;— Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. M, No. 607542; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2013 CW 0152.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Davede L. DAVILLIER v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2013-KH-1164.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 1, 2013.
   In re Davillier, Davede L.; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. D, Nos. 257854, 271269; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2013 KW 0348.

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. Jeremy D. HOWARD v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2013-KH-1165.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 1, 2013.
   In re Howard, Jeremy D.; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Beauregard, 36th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. CR-405-2008; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KH 12-00338.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Brandon Lee GAGE v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2013-KH-1178.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 1, 2013.
   In re Gage, Brandon Lee; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 305,039; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 47,-976-KA.

Denied


text:
    STATE ex rel. Robert C. BROADWAY v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2013-KH-1179.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 1, 2013.
   In re Broadway, Robert C; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Red River, 39th Judicial District Court Div. O, No. 39,794; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 48,-376-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. Cario DeSALVO v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2013-KH-1208.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 1, 2013.
   In re DeSalvo, Carlo; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. P, No. 95-3869; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 12-WR-538.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Kenneth L. MIMS v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2013-KH-1209.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 1, 2013.
   In re Mims, Kenneth L.; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Rapides, 9th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 268,638; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KH 12-00454.

Denied.


text:
    David W. POYDRAS v. LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONS.
    No. 2013-CI-1214.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 1, 2013.
   In re Poydras, David W.; — Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of £. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. F, No. 609,720; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2012 CA 1475.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Luhron A. GORMAN v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2013-KH-1238.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 1, 2013.
   In re Gorman, Luhron A.; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. S, No. 10-1566; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 13-KH-328.

Denied.

HUGHES, J., would grant.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Derrick PIERRE v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2013-KH-1239.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 1, 2013.
   In re Pierre, Derrick; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. D, No. 356-886; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Nos. 2013-K-0507, 2013-K-0042, 2013-K-0436, 2013-K-0538.

Denied. Relator must first address his request for a cost estimate to documents to which he is entitled under the Public Records Law to the record’s custodian, and may then seek judicial review in an independent action under the district court’s civil jurisdiction. R.S. 44:31; R.S. 44:35; State ex rel. McKnight v. State, 98-2258 (La.App. 1 Cir. 12/3/98), 742 So.2d 894.

CLARK, J., would deny.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Deandre JOHNSON v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2013-KH-1240.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 1, 2013.
   In re Johnson, Deandre; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Avoyelles, 12th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 131, 089; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KH 12-00823.

Denied. Repetitive. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4(A)

HUGHES, J., would grant.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Robert GRAHAM v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2013-KH-1242.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 1, 2013.
   In re Graham, Robert; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of East Carroll, 6th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 22,984.

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


text:
    STATE ex rel. Michael LOTT v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2013-KH-1243.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 1, 2013.
   In re Lott, Michael; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court, Div. A, No. 97-229; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 13-KH-225;.

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


text:
    STATE ex rel. Carl Patrick SMITH v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2013-KH-1244.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 1, 2013.
   In re Smith, Carl Patrick; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedíal Writs, Parish of Terrebonne, 32nd Judicial District Court Div. D, Nos. 155,680, 155,681; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2012 KW1322.

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


text:
    STATE ex rel. James FAULKIN v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2013-KH-1245.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 1, 2013.
   In re Faulkin, James; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. I, No. 378-098; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2013-K-0541.

Denied. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8; State ex rel. Glover v. State, 93-2330 (La.9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189; La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.3; State ex rel. Melinie v. State, 93-1380 (La.1/12/96), 665 So.2d 1172; State v. Cotton, 09-2397 (La.10/15/10), 45 So.3d 1030; cf. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4(D).


text:
    STATE ex rel. Leon WILLIAMS v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2013-KH-1246.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 1, 2013.
   In re Williams, Leon; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Webster, 26th Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 79131; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 47,-733-KA.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Vasilios PAPPAS v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2013-KH-1249.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 1, 2013.
   In re Pappas, Vasilios; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 399616; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2013 KW 0526.

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. Shannon ALEXANDER v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2013-KH-1252.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 1, 2013.
   In re Alexander, Shannon; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 96-1508; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 13-KH-278.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Richard Alan DARBY v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2013-KH-1255.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 1, 2013.
   In re Darby, Richard Alan; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Bienville, 2nd Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 31,987; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 48,-404-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 of Louisiana v. Kelley ANDERSON.
    No. 2013-KP-1302.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 1, 2013.
   In re Anderson, Kelley; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. N, No. 02-6893; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 13-KH-123.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Rodney STANBANK. State of Louisiana v. Antoine Williams. State of Louisiana v. Verquan Carter. State of Louisiana v. Charbreal Causey. State of Louisiana v. Hairro Harry.
    No. 2013-KK-1317.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 1, 2013.
   In re State of Louisiana; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. F, No. 513-553; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2013-K-0077.

Denied.

VICTORY and WELMER, JJ., would grant.


text:
    BROOKEWOOD INVESTMENTS CO., L.L.C. v. SIXTY-THREE TWENTY-FOUR CHEF MENTEUR HIGHWAY L.L.C. and Jacob V. Morreale.
    No. 2013-C-1372.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 1, 2013.
   In re Brookewood Investments Co., L.L.C.; — Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. N, No. 2006-1669; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2012-CA-1205.

Denied.

VICTORY, J., would grant.


text:
    Robert HUGHES v. Michael SABOGAL, DJ Enterprises Incorporated d/b/a Dales Towing and Storage and Towing and Recovery Professionals of Louisiana Trust. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company as Subrogee of/and Victoria Hughes v. Sabogal and DJ Enterprises d/b/a Dale’s Towing.
    No. 2013-CC-1407.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 1, 2013.
   In re Sabogal, Michael; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. L, No. 641-457 C/W 658-287; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 13-C-391.

Denied.

VICTORY and GUIDRY, JJ., would grant.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Feliciano B. ARMIJO.
    No. 2013-KP-1425.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 1, 2013.
   In re Armijo, Feliciano B.; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Allen, 33rd Judicial District Court Div. B, No. CR-2005-3813; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KW 12-00383.

Denied.


text:
    MURPHY CORMIER GENERAL CONTRACTOR, INC. v. STATE of Louisiana, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HOSPITALS, et al.
    No. 2013-C-1491.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 1, 2013.
   In re Cambre, Glenn; Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals; Office of Public Health; State of Louisiana et al.;— Defendant(s); Applying For Writ of Cer-tiorari and/or Review, Parish of Calcasieu, 14th Judicial District Court Div. H, No. 2007-3828; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 12-1000.

Denied.


text:
    Brenda WEATHERSPOON and Peggy Landry v. CHARTER HOME HEALTH, L.L.C., Bluecross Blueshield of Louisiana, and Colonial Insurance Company.
    No. 2013-C-1626.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 1, 2013.
   In re Landry, Peggy; Weatherspoon, Brenda et al.; — Plaintiff(s); Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. O, No. 567,921; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2012 CA 1916.

Denied.

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


text:
    Peterson M. YOKUM, et al. v. JOS. FEIN CATERER, INC., et al.
    No. 2013-CC-1657.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 1, 2013.
   In re Anderson, Polly Elizabeth; French Quarter Citizens, Inc.; Peterson M. Yokum, et al.; Vieux Carré Property Owners Residents and Associates, Inc.;— Plaintiff(s); Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. I, No. 2004-17286; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2013-C-0275.

Denied.

HUGHES, J., would grant.


text:
    Murphy J. PAINTER v. STATE of Louisiana, through the OFFICE OF the GOVERNOR, the DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE AND TAXATION, ALCOHOL AND TOBACCO CONTROL COMMISSION; Cynthia Bridges, in her Official Capacity as Secretary of the Department of Revenue and Taxation, the Office of State Inspector General, and Stephen Street Jr., in his Official Capacity as the State Inspector General.
    No. 2013-CC-1680.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 1, 2013.
   In re Painter, Murphy J.; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 604,308; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2012 CW 0224R.

Denied.

VICTORY and HUGHES, JJ„ would grant.


text:
    Coty Dale WILLIS v. Tsegai EMMANUEL and Karen Emmanuel, d/b/a Stop & Shop Grambling, a/k/a Stop & Shop Liquor Grambling Junction, a/k/a Stop-N-Shop Grambling Junction and Catlin Specialty Insurance Company.
    No. 2013-CC-1683.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 1, 2013.
   In re Willis, Coty Dale; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Lincoln, 3rd Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 54803; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 48493-CW.

Denied.

HUGHES, J., would grant.


text:
    SUCCESSION OF Tara Elizabeth SCHMOLKE.
    No. 2013-C-1696.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 1, 2013.
   In re Schmolke, Darren M.; — Other; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. N, No. 2007-03018; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2012-CA-1630.

Denied.

HUGHES, J., would grant.


text:
    Lou K. TAYLOR v. J.D. DUMAS, Jr. and Doris Shannon Dumas.
    No. 2013-C-1715.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 1, 2013.
   In re Taylor, Lou K; — Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Jackson, 2nd Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 31,761; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 48,055-CA.

Denied.


text:
    Reginald PHILLIPS v. CITY OF CROWLEY, et al.
    No. 2013-C-1718.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 1, 2013.
   In re City of Crowley; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Acadia, 15th Judicial District Court Div. L, No. 2010-10153-L; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 12-1306.

Denied.


text:
    MIDNIGHT DRILLING, LLC v. Claude Adam TRICHE, et al.
    No. 2013-C-1731.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 1, 2013.
   In re Cole Group; — Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Terrebonne, 32nd Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 160041; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2012 CA 1043.

Denied.


text:
    T. Semmes FAVROT v. James P. FAVROT.
    No. 2013-C-1735.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 1, 2013.
   In re Favrot, T. Semmes; — Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. L, No. 2008-03396; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2012-CA-1573.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. John Dennis DOLAN.
    No. 2013-KK-1740.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 1, 2013.
   In re Dolan, John Dennis; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. J, No. 525725; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2013 KW 0465.

Denied.


text:
    THE GRILL HOLDINGS, L.L.C. v. CAMELLIA GRILL HOLDINGS, INC. Camellia Grill Holdings, Inc. v. The Grill Holdings, L.L.C.
    No. 2013-C-1743.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 1, 2013.
   In re The Grill Holdings, L.L.C.;— Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. G, No. 2008-08236 C/W 2011-5947; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2012-CA-1642 C/W 2012-CA-1643.

Denied.


text:
    Calvin Arnold LAIN v. Enedelia CHAPA, Hall Transport, Inc. and Harco National Insurance Company.
    No. 2013-C-1753.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 1, 2013.
   In re Highway Graphics, Inc.; The Gray Insurance Company; — Defendant(s); Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Bossier, 26th Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 128676; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 48,-000-CA.

Denied.

VICTORY and CLARK, JJ., would grant.


text:
    Kyi LORMAND v. LOUISIANA STATE RACING COMMISSION.
    No. 2013-C-1757.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 1, 2013.
   In re Lormand, Kyi; — Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of St. Landry, 27th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 12-C-5173-A C/W 12-C-5179-A; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 13-143 C/W 13-144.

Denied.


text:
    James Wayne EPPERSON, Preston Glover Epperson, Ernest Edward Epperson, and Bess Preston Epperson v. Marguerite FRANCIS, Ruby Elizabeth May Miller Crotwell, Joseph Eli May, Jr., Richard Amos May, Calvin Ray May, Jason Laz Hill, and Christine Landry Hill.
    No. 2013-C-1758.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 1, 2013.
   In re Crotwell, Ruby Elizabeth May Miller; Francis, Marguerite et al.; Hill, Christine Landry; Hill, Jason Laz; May Jr., Joseph Eli; May, Calvin Ray; May, Richard Amos; — Defendant(s); Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Livingston, 21st Judicial District Court Div. G, No. 121393; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2012 CA 0580.

Denied.


text:
    Calvin Arnold LAIN v. Enedelia CHAPA, Hall Transport, Inc. and Harco National Insurance Company.
    No. 2013-C-1759.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 1, 2013.
   In re State of Louisiana through the Department of Transportation & Development; The Gray Insurance Company;— Defendant(s); Applying For Writ of Cer-tiorari and/or Review, Parish of Bossier, 26th Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 128676; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 48,000-CA.

Denied.

VICTORY and CLARK, JJ.,would grant.


text:
    Robert THORNTON and Lorenza Williams, Individually and on Behalf of the Board of Trustees of the Baptist Temple Baptist Church v. Alvin L. CARTHON, Sr.
    No. 2013-C-1785.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 1, 2013.
   In re Carthon, Sr., Alvin L.; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 555,932; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 47,948-CA.

Denied.


text:
    SUCCESSION OF Percy J. FONTENOT.
    No. 2013-CC-1786.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 1, 2013.
   In re Fontenot, Darwin J.; — Other; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Evangeline, 13th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 11480; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CW 13-00126.

Denied.


text:
    Antonio FARLEY v. Dyana JOHNSON, Gramercy Insurance Company and First National Insurance Company of America.
    No. 2013-CC-1796.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 1, 2013.
   In re First National Insurance Company of America; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 610,600; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2013 CW 0495.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Joseph THORNTON.
    No. 2013-KK-1811.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 1, 2013.
   In re State of Louisiana; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. K, No. 512-390; to the Court, of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2013-K-0768.

Denied.

VICTORY, J., would grant.


text:
    Sherri HOTARD v. MURPHY, ROGERS, SLOSS & GAMBEL.
    No. 2013-C-1818.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 1, 2013.
   In re Hotard, Sherri; — Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review Office of Workers’ Compensation District 7, No. 07-08586; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 13-CA-95.

Denied.

GUIDRY, J., recused.


text:
    Edward TAKEWELL and Bonnie Fye Smith Takewell v. Rebekah Wyatt MASTERS, Wendell Wyatt, Juanita Wyatt Tucker and David Biddle.
    No. 2013-C-1834.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 1, 2013.
   In re Edward Takewell, et al.; Takewell, Bonnie Faye Smith; — Plaintiff(s); Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Ouachita, 4th Judicial District Court Div. I, No. 2010-0997; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 48,111-CA.

HUGHES, J., would grant.


text:
    GIBSON SERVICES, L.L.C. v. US LIQUIDS OF LOUISIANA, L.P., et al.
    No. 2013-CC-1838.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 1, 2013.
   In re US Liquids of Louisiana L.P.;— Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Plaque-mines, 25th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 59-831; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2013-C-0498.

Denied.

VICTORY, J., would grant.


text:
    UNISYS CORPORATION v. The LOUISIANA OFFICE OF MOTOR VEHICLES, through Kay HODGES, In her Official Capacity as the Commissioner of the Louisiana Office of Motor Vehicles, the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections, through Michael D. Edmonson, in his Official Capacity as Deputy Secretary of the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections, and the Division of Administration for the State of Louisiana, through Paul Rainwater, in his Official Capacity as Commissioner of Administration.
    No. 2013-C-1839.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 1, 2013.
   In re Unisys Corporation; — Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 593,553; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2012 CA 1578.

Denied.


text:
    Denise BREAZEALE and Thomas Breazeale, Individually, and on Behalf of the Minor Child, Thomas Breazeale, Jr. v. T.T. and C.T., Individually, and as Parents and Legal Guardian of J.T., and ABC Insurance Company.
    No. 2013-C-1852.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 1, 2013.
   In re St. Tammany Parish School Board; — Other; Applying For Writ of Cer-tiorari and/or Review, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. F, No. 2011-12856; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2012 CA 1703.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Chet ORGERON.
    No. 2013-KK-1928.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 1, 2013.
   In re State of Louisiana; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. H, No. 514-359; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2013-K-0993.

Denied.

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


text:
    STATE ex rel. Ray HOLLINS v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2013-KH-2002.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 1, 2013.
   In re Hollins, Ray; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. H. No. 96-2043; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 13-KH-572.

Denied.

JOHNSON, C.J., and WEIMER, J„ would grant.


text:
    STATE ex rel. John R. ALLEN v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2013-KH-2271.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 1, 2013.
   In re Allen, John R.; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. J, No. 527632-2; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2013 KW 1036.

Denied.


text:
    In re John A. McKINNEY, et al.
    No. 2013-OK-2572.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 6, 2013.
   In re State of Louisiana; — Other; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. M, No. E-03643-12; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2013-KM-1447.

Denied.


text:
    Chester BARRILLEAUX, Individually and as Administrator of The Estate of His Minor Children, Dustin Barrilleaux and Hunter Barrilleaux, and Melissa Barrilleaux, and Tiffany Barrilleaux Meador v. STATE of Louisiana, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND DEVELOPMENT.
    No. 2013-C-1627.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 7, 2013.
   In re Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development; State of Louisiana et al.; — Defendant(s); Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of W. Baton Rouge, 18th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 35,286; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2012 CA 0060.

Denied.

HUGHES, J., recused.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Kenneth J. HALL.
    No. 2013-KK-1883.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 8, 2013.
   In re Hall, Kenneth J.; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. C, No. 513-651; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2013-K-0860.

Not considered; not timely filed.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Floyd NICHOLSON v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2013-KH-662.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 8, 2013.
   In re Nicholson, Floyd; — Plaintiff; Applying for Reconsideration of this court’s action dated August 30, 2013; Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. A, No. 348-379; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2013-K-0187.

Reconsideration denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Edmond D. SPENCER v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2013-KH-0792.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 8, 2013.
   In re Spencer, Edmond D.; — Plaintiff; Applying for Reconsideration of this Court’s action dated September 20, 2013, Parish of Washington, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 064026; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2013 KW 0115.

Reconsideration denied.


text:
    In re Bobby HICKMAN.
    No. 2013-C-1381.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 8, 2013.
   In re City of Leesville; — Defendant; Applying for Rehearing of this court’s action dated October 4, 2013, Parish of Vernon, 30th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 85745; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 12 01360-CA.

Rehearing denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Miguel TIJERINA v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2012-KH-2524.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 8, 2013.
   In re Tijerina; Miguel; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. J, No. 427231; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2012 KW 1300.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Derunn HENDERSON.
    No. 2013-KO-0675.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 8, 2013.
   In re Henderson, Derunn; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review/ Parish of Webster, 26th Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 81608; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 47,-811-KA.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Corneil OBY.
    No. 2013-KO-0830.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 8, 2013.
   In re Oby, Corneil; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Ascension, 23rd Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 25208; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2012 KA 1166.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Lester BELL.
    No. 2013-K-0839.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 8, 2013.
   In re Bell, Lester; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Ascension, 23rd Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 27624; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2012 KA 1000.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Kenneth MOSLEY.
    No. 2013-KO-0842.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 8, 2013.
   In re Mosley, Kenneth; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. I, No. 475-292; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2011-KA-1514.

Denied.

HUGHES, J., would grant.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Leron K. CLARK.
    No. 2013-KO-0850.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 8, 2013.
   In re Clark, Leron K.; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 02-10-0927; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2012 KA 1215.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Leon WILLIAMS v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2013-KH-0851.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 8, 2013.
   In re Williams, Leon; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Webster, 26th Judicial District Court Div. C, Nos. 79,131, 74,883; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 48,138-KH.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Brandon C. DAVIS.
    No. 2013-K-0868.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 8, 2013.
   In re Davis, Brandon C.; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 445529-1; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2012 KA 1391.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Shawn E. HAMMOND.
    No. 2013-K-0887.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 8, 2013.
   In re Hammond, Shawn; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 445529; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2012 KA1559.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Kenneth Earl STEELMAN.
    No. 2013-K-0891.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 8, 2013.
   In re Steelman, Kenneth Earl; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Sabine, 11th Judicial District Court Div. O, No. 68258; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 12-1008.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Andrew PENTONY.
    No. 2013-05-0888.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 8, 2013.
   In re Pentony, Andrew; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. J, No. 08-1801; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 13-KH-84.

Denied; not timely.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Kenneth Earl STEELMAN.
    No. 2013-K-0892.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 8, 2013.
   In re Confidential Party; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Sabine, 11th Judicial District Court Div. O, No. 68259; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 12-1009.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Logan Michael CRAIG.
    No. 2013-K-0902.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 8, 2013.
   In re Craig, Logan Michael; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Tangipahoa, 21st Judicial District Court Div. G, No. 25689; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2012 KA 1262.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Willie DUNN, Jr.
    No. 2013-K-0915.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 8, 2013.
   In re Dunn Jr., Willie; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. J, No. 02-010-0170; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2012 KA 1213.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Scott G. CLEVELAND.
    No. 2013-KO-0926.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 8, 2013.
   In re Cleveland, Scott G.; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. J, No. 498-978; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2012-KA-0163.

Denied.

HUGHES, J., would grant.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Zachary PUSCH.
    No. 2013-KO-0958.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 8, 2013.
   In re Pusch, Zachary; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Ascension, 23rd Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 28,483; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2012 KA 1306.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Jamal James CARMOUCHE.
    No. 2013-KO-0976.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 8, 2013.
   In re Carmouche, Jamal James; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Lafayette, 15th Judicial District Court Div. L, No. CR 136308; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 12-1099.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Caddara D. HOGAN.
    No. 2013-KO-0977.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 8, 2013.
   In re Hogan, Caddara D.; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Desoto, 42nd Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 10-020316; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 47,993-KA.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Jamal WALKER v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2013-KH-1032.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 8, 2013.
   In re Walker, Jamal; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. H, No. 07-6494; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 13-KH-177.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Robert TURNER.
    No. 2013-KP-1131.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 8, 2013.
   In re Turner, Robert; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. L, No. 09-2283; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 13-KH-104.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Richard McCULLOUGH v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2013-KH-1148.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 8, 2013.
   In re McCullough, Richard; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 462641; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2013 KW 0421.

Denied.

HUGHES, J., would grant.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Ronald K. BICKHAM v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2013-KH-1154.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 8, 2013.
   In re Bickham, Ronald K; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. G, No. 447504; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2013 KW 0294.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Patrick Paul GEORGE v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2013-KH-1180.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 8, 2013.
   In re George, Patrick Paul; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Lafayette, 15th Judicial District Court Div. F, No. 127,278; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 12-1118.

Denied.

HUGHES, J., would grant.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Andrew D. WETZEL v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2013-KH-1206.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 8, 2013.
   In re Wetzel, Andrew D.; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. J, No. 472552; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2013 KW 0350.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Andrew D. WETZEL v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2013-KH-1207.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 8, 2013.
   In re Wetzel, Andrew D.; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 450459; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2013 KW 0459.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Ryan McCRAY v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2013-KH-1210.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 8, 2013.
   In re McCray, Ryan; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. F, No. 490371; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2013 KW 0365.

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. Noel AUSTIN v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2013-KH-1211.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 8, 2013.
   In re Austin, Noel; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 03-6329; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 13-KH-346.

Denied.

GUIDRY, J., recused.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Franklin MORRISON Sr.; Franklin Morrison, Jr. v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2013-KH-1212.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 8, 2013.
   In re Franklin Morrison, Jr.; Franklin Morrison, Sr.; — Plaintiff(s); Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 96-1088; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 13-KH-242.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Billy Ray ANDERSON v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2013-KH-1213.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 8, 2013.
   In re Anderson, Billy Ray; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of West Carroll, 5th Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 2010-F-076; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 48,306-KH.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Arthur WILLIAMS a/k/a Arther Williams v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2013-KH-1250.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 8, 2013.
   In re Williams, Arthur; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. E, No. 396-904; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2013-K-640.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. James R. FRANCIS v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2013-KH-1253.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 8, 2013.
   In re Francis, James R.; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Lafayette, 15th Judicial District Court Div. F, No. CR 125228.2; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 12-1221.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Michael GORMAN v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2013-KH-1257.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 8, 2013.
   In re Gorman, Michael; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Div. 4, No. 277,086; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 48,-347-KH.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Helen BURNS v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2013-KH-1265.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 8, 2013.
   In re Burns, Helen; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 255875E; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2013 KW 0450.

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

WEIMER, J., recused.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Ricardo K. DUKES v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2013-KH-1267.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 8, 2013.
   In re Dukes, Ricardo K; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Concordia, 7th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 08-0854; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KH 12-00704.

Denied.


text:
    State ex rel. Michael D. BALL v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2013-KH-1329.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 8, 2013.
   In re Ball, Michael D.; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. M, No. 11-396; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 12-KA-710. '

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Mark Q. TAYLOR, Jr. v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2013-KH-1330.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 8, 2013.
   In re Taylor Jr., Mark Q.; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedíal Writ is, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. G, No. 97-374; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 13-KH-413.

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. Toriano Z. KELLY v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2013-KH-1332.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 8, 2013.
   In re Kelly, Toriano Z.; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Tangipahoa, 21st Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 903,397; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2012 KA 1197.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Duberney MORA v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2013-KH-1343.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 8, 2013.
   In re Mora, Duberney; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Divs. G, P, Nos. 00-6001, 699-055; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, Nos. 13-KH-122, 13-KH-138, 13-C-368.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. LeSandra BARTLEY v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2013-KH-1344.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 8, 2013.
   In re Bartley, LeSandra; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. O, No. 81-3068; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 13-KH-102.

Denied.


text:
    Monte McWILLIAMS v. EXXON MOBIL CORP., et al.
    No. 2013-C-1402.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 8, 2013.
   In re Chevron U.S.A., Inc. et al.; Texaco, Inc.; Union Oil Company of California; — Defendant(s); Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Calca-sieu, 14th Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 2009-2803; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CA12-1288.

Denied.

VICTORY and WEIMER, JJ., would grant.


text:
    Mayor Mitchell J. LANDRIEU, etc. v. The ST. CHARLES PARISH COUNCIL, et al.
    No. 2013-CC-1521.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 8, 2013.
   In re Benedetto, Wendy; Cochran, Larry; Faucheux, Clayton; Fletcher, Traci; Hogan, Paul H.; Nuss, Dennis; Schexnay-dre, Carolyn; St. Charles Parish Council et al.; Tastet, Shelley; Wilson, Terrell;— Defendant(s); Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. D, No. 12-8721; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2013-C-0219.

Denied.

VICTORY, WEIMER and HUGHES, JJ., would grant.


text:
    GIBSLAND BANK & TRUST COMPANY v. KITCHENS, BENTON, KITCHENS & BLACK (APLC), Melanie F. McCullough and First Mercury Insurance Company.
    No. 2013-CC-1643.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 8, 2013.
   In re Gibsland Bank & Trust Company; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Bienville, 2nd Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 41-926; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 47,763-CW.

Denied.


text:
    Rev. James SMART, III, as the Universal Successor of the Succession of Henry Walton v. Cesar J. VAZQUEZ, Esq., John D. Rawls, Esq. and Vazquez and Rawls, A.P.L.C., d/b/a Nursing Home Advocates, working thru J.A.G.S. Consultant, L.L.C.
    No. 2013-C-1661.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 8, 2013.
   In re Smart III, Rev. James; — Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. D, No. 2010-8409; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2012-CA-1694.

Denied.

HUGHES, J., would grant.


text:
    Abraham CRUZ v. Jason F. GILES, et al.
    No. 2013-CC-1766.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 8, 2013.
   In re Cruz, Abraham; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. C, No. 2010-12386; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2013-C-0685.

Denied.


text:
    Kelvin WELLS, in the Interest of Treasure WELLS, Bethany WELLS, and Patrick Wells v. EAST BATON ROUGE SCHOOL BOARD, et al.
    No. 2013-CD-1819.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 8, 2013.
   In re Wells, Kelvin; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. 0, No. 597165; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2013 CW 1298.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Michael DUFRENE.
    No. 2013-KK-1867.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 8, 2013.
   In re Dufrene, Michael; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Tangipahoa, 21st Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 1201972; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2013 KW 0672.

Denied.


text:
    Patrick BARTON, et al. v. AVOYELLES PARISH SCHOOL BOARD.
    No. 2013-CC-1881.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 8, 2013.
   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. CW 13-00445.

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

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


text:
    Raymond SONNIER and Carolyn Sepulvado Sonnier v. Johnathan Blake ROBERSON and Marilyn Shawnee Roberson Sepulvado.
    No. 2013-OC-1888.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 8, 2013.
   In re Sonnier, Carolyn Sepulvado; Son-nier, Raymond; — Plaintiffs); Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Sabine, 11th Judicial District Court, No. 63,390; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CA 13^491.

Denied.


text:
    Helen Amarena CHRISTAKIS and Nicholas Christakis v. CLIPPER CONSTRUCTION, L.L.C., Clipper Estates Master Homeowners’ Association, Inc., ABC Insurance Company(s).
    No. 2013-C-1913.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 8, 2013.
   In re Christakis, Helen Amarena et al.; Christakis, Nicholas; — Plaintiffs); Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. F, No. 2008-15897; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2012 CA 1638.

Denied.


text:
    James E. DAWSON, Jr. v. HARMONY, L.L.C. and/or Turner Industries Holding Company, L.L.C. and/or Turner Industries Group, L.L.C., Formosa Plastics Corporation Louisiana, Formosa Transrail Corporation, Trinity Industries, Inc. and ABC Insurance Company.
    No. 2013-C-1915.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 8, 2013.
   In re Dawson Jr., James E.; — Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. F, No. 530,173; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2012 CA 1580.

Denied.

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


text:
    Cynthia WALLER, et al v. CHEVRON U.S.A., INC., et al.
    No. 2013-CC-1921.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 8, 2013.
   In re Petro-Hunt L.L.C.; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. L, No. 2008-05619; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2013-C-0648.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Tory CLARK, et al.
    No. 2013-KK-1930.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 8, 2013.
   In re Clark, Tory; — Defendant,; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 10 — 4853; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 13-K-524.

Denied.


text:
    Joseph B. FREEMAN Jr., et al. v. BLOCK “T” OPERATING, LLC, et al.
    No. 2013-C-1933.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 8, 2013.
   In re Block “T” Operating, LLC, et al; Block “T” Petroleum, Inc.; — Defendant(s); Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Lafayette, 15th Judicial District Court Div. I, No. C-2011-7167; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 13-58.

Denied.


text:
    Angelo BRACEY v. CITY OF ALEXANDRIA.
    No. 2013-C-1934.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 8, 2013.
   In re City of Alexandria; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review Office of Workers’ Compensation District 2, No. 11-04410; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 13-16.

Denied.

VICTORY and CLARK, JJ., would grant.


text:
    Eugen VARNEANU v. JUBILEE NAVIGATION, LTD.
    No. 2013-CC-1936.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 8, 2013.
   In re Jubilee Navigation, Ltd.; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Bernard, 34th Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 119-781; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2013-C-0391.

Denied.

VICTORY, J., would grant.


text:
    Danielle EDWARDS, Individually and on Behalf of her Minor Child, Jerrell A. Edwards v. Joshua GATES and Clay Camp No. 271, Woodmen of the World of New Roads, LA.
    No. 2013-CC-1937.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 8, 2013.
   In re Edwards, Danielle et al.; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Pointe Coupee, 18th Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 43380; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2013 CW 0229.

Denied.

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


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Melissa HUDSON.
    No. 2013-KK-1941.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 8, 2013.
   In re Hudson, Melissa; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Helena, 21st Judicial District Court Div. H, No. 17945; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2013 KW 0189.

Denied.

HUGHES, J., would grant.


text:
    NEW PROGRESSIVE LODGE NO. 262, INC. v. Robert HUTCHESON; C & R Distributing and New Hampshire Insurance Company.
    No. 2013-C-1943.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 8, 2013.
   In re C & R Distributing; Hutcheson, Robert; New Hampshire Insurance Company; Xpert Transportation, LLC; — Defendants); Applying For Writ of Certiora-ri and/or Review, Parish of St. John, 40th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 58,624; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 12-CA-872.

Denied.

GUIDRY, J., recused.


text:
    Ginger JONES v. Franklin M. WOOLF and the Travelers Indemnity Company of Connecticut.
    No. 2013-CC-1945.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 8, 2013.
   In re Travelers Indemnity Company of Connecticut; Woolf, Franklin M. et ah;— Defendant(s); Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. I, No. 582,143; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2013 CW 0370.

Denied.


text:
    Robert C. ESTES v. ST. TAMMANY PARISH SCHOOL BOARD and Louis D. Boyne, Jr.
    No. 2013-C-1946.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 8, 2013.
   In re Encompass Insurance Company of America; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 2010-15104; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2012 CA 1750.

Denied.

VICTORY, J., would grant.


text:
    Jerry Art EVANS, et al. v. PHILLIPS 66 COMPANY, et al.
    No. 2013-CC-1947.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 8, 2013.
   In re Ensco Offshore Company; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Catahoula, 7th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 26,939; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CW 13-00101.

Denied.

VICTORY, J., would grant.