author: HUGHES, J.,

text:
    In re ADOPTION OF B.C.F.
    No. 2014-CJ-1502.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    July 21, 2014.
   In re Frickey, Renata; — Other; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, Jefferson Parish Juvenile Court, No. 13-AD-84; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 14-CA-108.

Prior report: La.App., 145 So.3d 509, 2014 WL 2861686.

11 Denied.

HUGHES, J., would grant and assigns reasons.

HUGHES, J.,

would grant the writ.

I ¡.The father should clearly be the custodial parent, but this is not a custody contest. The impossible-to-comply-with judgment is the cause for the lack of visitation. The trial court would have the mother pay for a lawyer in order to even attempt to communicate with her daughter. The mother may not be entitled to custody or even visitation, but she is entitled to due process.


source: Caselaw Access Project

license: Public Domain

text:
    In re Daniel James STANFORD.
    No. 2014-B-1896.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 17, 2014.
   ORDER

| ¡.Considering the Petition for Interim Suspension filed by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel, and the letter fi*om respondent’s counsel advising that respondent does not oppose the entry of an order of interim suspension,

IT IS ORDERED that Daniel James Stanford, Louisiana Bar Roll number 22639, be and he hereby is suspended from the practice of law on an interim basis pursuant to Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 19, pending further orders of this court. Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 26(E), this order is effective immediately.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that necessary disciplinary proceedings be instituted in accordance with Supreme Court Rule XIX, §§ 11 and 19.

FOR THE COURT:

/s/ John L. Weimer Justice, Supreme Court Of Louisiana


author: PER CURIAM.

text:
    In re James Hamilton DOWLING, Jr.
    No. 2014-B-1345.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 19, 2014.
   ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS

PER CURIAM.

_JjThis disciplinary matter arises from formal charges filed by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (“ODC”) against respondent, James Hamilton Dowling, Jr., an attorney licensed to practice law in Louisiana.

FORMAL CHARGES

Between December 14, 2009 and October 12, 2010, respondent represented Craig Delaune in a criminal matter. On October 12, 2010, Mr. Delaune pleaded guilty to a lesser charge and was sentenced.

On September 9, 2011, respondent was declared ineligible to practice law in Louisiana for failure to pay his bar dues and the disciplinary assessment and for failure to file his trust account disclosure statement. He has continuously remained ineligible to practice law since that date.

In January 2012, while he was ineligible to practice law, respondent agreed to represent Mr. Delaune in an attempt to expunge his conviction. Between January 7, 2012 and March 27, 2012, respondent received a total of $2,000 in advanced attorney’s fees from Mr. Delaune. However, after receiving the fees, respondent failed to file an expungement proceeding. Mr. Delaune was also |2unable to locate or contact respondent, and respondent did not account for or refund the unearned fee.

DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS

In July 2013, the ODC filed formal charges against respondent, alleging that his conduct as set forth above violated the following provisions of the Rules of Professional Conduct: Rules 1.1(c) (failure to pay bar dues and the disciplinary assessment), 1.3 (failure to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client), 1.4 (failure to communicate with a client), 1.5(f) (failure to account for or refund an unearned fee), 5.5 (engaging in the unauthorized practice of law), 8.4(b) (commission of a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer), and 8.4(c) (engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation).

Respondent failed to answer the formal charges. Accordingly, the factual allegations contained therein were deemed admitted and proven by clear and convincing evidence pursuant to Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 11(E)(3). No formal hearing was held, but the parties were given an opportunity to file with the hearing committee written arguments and documentary evidence on the issue of sanctions. Respondent filed nothing for the hearing committee’s consideration.

Hearing Committee Report

After considering the ODC’s deemed admitted submission, the hearing committee, noting that the factual allegations. in the formal charges were deemed admitted, accepted those facts as true. Based on those facts, the committee determined respondent violated the Rules of Professional Conduct as alleged in the formal charges.

13After reviewing the ABA’s Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, the committee determined that the baseline sanction is disbarment. In aggravation, the committee found the following factors: a dishonest or selfish motive, refusal to acknowledge the wrongful nature of the conduct, and indifference to making restitution. In mitigation, the committee acknowledged that respondent has no prior disciplinary record.

After also considering this court’s prior jurisprudence addressing similar misconduct, the committee recommended that respondent be disbarred and be required to pay full restitution, with legal interest, to Mr. Delaune.

Neither respondent nor the ODC filed an objection to the committee’s report or recommendation.

Disciplinary Board Recommendation

After reviewing the record, the disciplinary board determined that the hearing committee’s factual findings are supported by the factual allegations asserted in the formal charges and/or by the evidence submitted in support of the allegations. The board also agreed with the committee that respondent violated the Rules of Professional Conduct as charged.

The board further determined that respondent knowingly, if not intentionally, violated duties owed to his client and the legal profession. He caused actual harm to Mr. Delaune by collecting $2,000 for legal services he did not perform and failing to refund those funds. After considering the ABA’s Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, the board determined that the baseline sanction is suspension.

In aggravation, the board found the following factors: a dishonest or selfish motive, bad faith obstruction of the disciplinary proceeding by intentionally failing to comply with the rules or orders of the disciplinary agency, substantial | ^experience in the practice of law (admitted 2003), and indifference to making restitution. Like the committee, the board found the sole mitigating factor to be the absence of a prior disciplinary record.

After also considering this court’s prior jurisprudence addressing similar misconduct, the board recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for one year and one day. The board also recommended that respondent be ordered to refund the unearned fee to Mr. Delaune. One board member dissented and would recommend disbarment because respondent had not yet refunded the unearned fee.

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

DISCUSSION

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

In cases in which the lawyer does not answer the formal charges, the factual allegations of those charges are deemed admitted. Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 11(E)(3). Thus, the ODC bears no additional burden to prove the factual allegations contained in the formal charges after those charges have been deemed admitted. However, the language of § 11(E)(3) does not encompass legal conclusions that flow from the factual allegations. If the legal conclusion the ODC seeks to prove (i.e., a violation of a specific rule) is not readily apparent from the deemed admitted facts, additional evidence may need to be submitted in order to Rprove the legal conclusions that flow from the admitted factual allegations. In re: Donnan, 01-8058 (La.1/10/03), 838 So.2d 715.

The record in this deemed admitted matter supports a finding that respondent accepted a representation and a legal fee when he was ineligible to practice law, neglected a legal matter, failed to communicate with his client, and failed to refund an unearned fee. Based on these facts, respondent has violated the Rules of Professional Conduct as charged by the ODC.

Having found evidence of professional misconduct, we now turn to a determination of the appropriate sanction for respondent’s actions. In determining a sanction, we are mindful that disciplinary proceedings are designed to maintain high standards of conduct, protect the public, preserve the integrity of the profession, and deter future misconduct. Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Reis, 513 So.2d 1173 (La.1987).

Respondent knowingly, if not intentionally, violated duties owed to his client and the legal profession, causing actual harm. The baseline sanction for this type of misconduct is suspension. The record supports the aggravating factors found by the disciplinary board, and the only mitigating factor present is the absence of a prior disciplinary record.

We addressed similar misconduct in the case of In re: Geiss, 97-1726 (La.9/26/97), 701 So.2d 967. In Geiss, an attorney accepted a representation and a $1,500 fee while he was ineligible to practice law. The attorney then neglected the legal matter and failed to communicate with the client. He also failed to timely refund the unearned fee, taking nine months from the date the client requested a refund to fully comply. Additionally, the attorney failed to cooperate with the ODC in its investigation and did not answer the formal charges filed against him. For this misconduct, we suspended the attorney from the practice of law for one year and one day.

Uln light of our decision in Geiss, we agree that the one year and one day suspension recommended by the board in the instant case is appropriate. Accordingly, we will accept the disciplinary board’s recommendation and suspend respondent from the practice of law for one year and one day. We will also order respondent to refund the unearned fee to Mr. Delaune.

DECREE

Upon review of the findings and recommendations of the hearing committee and disciplinary board, and considering the record, it is ordered that James Hamilton Dowling, Jr., Louisiana Bar Roll number 28341, be and he hereby is suspended from the practice of law for one year and one day. It is further ordered that respondent shall refund $2,000 plus legal interest to Craig Delaune. All costs and expenses in the matter are assessed against respondent in accordance with Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 10.1, with legal interest to commence thirty days from the date of finality of this court’s judgment until paid.

      . As of May 31, 2013, respondent is also ineligible to practice law for failing to fulfill mandatory continuing legal education requirements.


author: PER CURIAM. JOHNSON, Chief Justice,

text:
    STATE ex rel. Clifton Crozer GREENE v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2013-KH-1972.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 19, 2014.
   PER CURIAM.

|,Granted; relief denied; sentence corrected. The district court erred in granting relator’s motion to correct an illegal sentence by amending his sentence to reflect that it is no longer without benefit of parole. Although relator seeks review because the district court did not provide him the remedy he sought — resentencing according to the applicable range for the next responsive verdict of manslaughter— the district court erred in granting relator any relief. The decision in Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S.—, 132 S.Ct. 2455, 183 L.Ed.2d 407 (2012), is not retroactive to final sentences. State v. Tate, 12-2763 (La.11/5/13), 130 So.3d 829, cert. denied, Tate v. Louisiana, — U.S.—, 134 S.Ct. 2663, 189 L.Ed.2d 214 (2014). The district court’s order is therefore vacated and relator’s original sentence of life imprisonment at hard labor without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence is reinstated.

JOHNSON, C.J., would deny.

JOHNSON, Chief Justice,

dissents.

|,I would deny the writ application.


author:
PER CURIAM.
      JOHNSON, Chief Justice,

text:
    STATE ex rel. Raymond GREEN v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2013-KH-0063.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 19, 2014.
   PER CURIAM.

11 Granted; relief denied; sentence corrected. The district court erred in granting relator’s motion to correct an illegal sentence by amending his sentence to reflect that it is no longer without parole eligibility and ordering the Louisiana Department of Corrections to revise relator’s prison master accordingly. The court further erred by directing the Department to calculate an eligibility date for parole consideration according to the criteria provided by La.R.S. 15:574.4(A)(2). Although relator seeks review because the district court did not provide him the remedy he sought — resentencing according to the applicable range for the next responsive verdict of manslaughter — the court erred in granting relator any relief. The decision in Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S.—, 132 S.Ct. 2455, 183 L.Ed.2d 407 (2012), is not retroactive to final sentences. State v. Tate, 12-2763 (La.11/5/13), 130 So.3d 829, cert. denied, Tate v. Louisiana, — U.S. —, 134 S.Ct. 2663, 189 L.Ed.2d 214 (2014). The district court’s order is therefore vacated in its entirety. Relator’s original sentence of life imprisonment at hard labor without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence is reinstated. See La.C.Cr.P. art. 882 (an appellate court may correct an illegal sentence “at any time”); see also State v. Williams, 00-1725 (La.11/28/01), 800 So.2d 790. The Department of Corrections is directed to maintain relator’s prison master in conformity with the terms of the sentence required by law.

JOHNSON, C.J., would deny.

JOHNSON, Chief Justice,

dissents.

hi would deny the •writ application.


text:
    Anthony C. McMASTER v. PROGRESSIVE SECURITY INSURANCE COMPANY, et al.
    No. 2014-C-1038.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 19, 2014.
   ORDER

12Considering the pleadings filed in this Court in these proceedings,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Seal Record and Application for Certiorari and Review filed by Applicant-Counsel for Plaintiff are denied.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for Sanctions for Frivolous Writ Application filed by Respondents is denied.

IT IS ORDERED that the Motion for Damages for Frivolous Writ ■ Application filed by Respondents is granted. Pursuant to La. C.C.P. art. 2164, Applicant-Counsel for Plaintiff is hereby ordered to pay $10,000.00 to the Kiefer & Kiefer law firm. Applicant-Counsel for Plaintiff is also assessed with all legal fees, costs, and expenses in connection with these proceedings in this Court.

/s/

Supreme Court Justice


text:
    In re Randal Alandre TOASTON.
    No. 2014-B-1734.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Aug. 15, 2014.
   In re Disciplinary Counsel; — Other; Applying For Petition for Interim Suspension for Threat of Harm, Pursuant to Rule XIX, § 19.2.

Petition for interim suspension granted.


text:
    WHISTLER ENERGY LLC, et al. v. Robert Fulton SMITH, Jr., et al.
    No. 2014-CC-1747.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Aug. 21, 2014.
   In re Crum & Foster Specialty Insurance Company; — Defendant; Applying For Stay, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. H, No. 2011-8906; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2014-C-0814.

Granted. The judgment of the court of appeal is reversed. The judgment of the district court is reinstated. Case remanded to the district court for further proceedings.

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


text:
    In re James Ward DAVIS.
    No. 2014-B-1650.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Aug. 22, 2014.
   In re Disciplinary Counsel; — Other; Applying For Petition for Interim Suspension.

Petition for interim suspension granted.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Donald THOMPSON.
    No. 2014-KK-1661.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Aug. 22, 2014.
   In re Thompson, Donald; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of East Feliciana, 20th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 13-CR-236; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2014 KW 0745.

Denied.

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


text:
    Peterson M. YOKUM, et al. v. FUNKY 544, LLC, et al.
    No. 2014-CC-1744.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Aug. 22, 2014.
   In re Anderson, Polly Elizabeth; Yo-kum, Peterson M. et al.; — Plaintiffs); Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. N, No. 10-06826; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2014-C-0757.

Denied.


text:
    Ernest M. SMITH v. The UNOPENED SUCCESSION of Dale C. BOLIVER, E.L. Farmer & Company and their Insurer Southern County Mutual Insurance Company, Jointly and Insolido.
    No. 2014-CC-0891.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Aug. 25, 2014.
   In re Smith, Ernest M.; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Desoto, 42nd Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 71,940; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 49,-217-CW C/W 49,245-CW.

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


text:
    In re Appeal of the Decision of the DISCIPLINARY BOARD NO. 13-PDB-151.
    No. 2014-OB-1017.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Aug. 25, 2014.
   In re Butler, Herbert; — Plaintiff; Applying For Appeal of the Decision of the Disciplinary Board Office of Disciplinary Board, No, 13-PDB-151.

Leave to appeal denied.


text:
    In re Appeal of the Decision of the DISCIPLINARY BOARD NO. 13-PDB-162.
    No. 2014-OB-1079.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Aug. 25, 2014.
   In re Ellison, Reginald; — Plaintiff; Applying For Appeal of the Decision of the Disciplinary Board Office of Disciplinary Board, No. 13-PDB-162.

Leave to appeal denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Kenny R. THOMAS v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2013-KH-2540.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Aug. 25, 2014.
   In re Thomas, Kenny R.; — Plaintiff; Applying for Reconsideration of this Court’s action dated may 30, 2014, Parish of Evangeline, 13th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 57,594-FA; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KH 13-00774.

Reconsideration denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Brandon LAVERGNE v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2013-KH-2544.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Aug. 25, 2014.
   In re Lavergne, Brandon; — Plaintiff; Applying for Reconsideration of this Court’s action dated May 30, 2014, Parish of Lafayette, 15th Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 138234; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KH 13-00507.

Reconsideration denied.


text:
    Roy ANDERMANN v. WILLBROS CONSTRUCTION (U.S.), LLC UCAR Pipeline, Inc. and Dow Chemical Company, Laney Directional Drilling, LLC.
    No. 2014-CC-1184.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Aug. 25, 2014.
   In re Andermann, Roy; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. James, 23rd Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 33,677; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 14-C-102.

Stay denied. Writ denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Roy Lee WILLIAMS v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2013-KH-2832.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Aug. 25, 2014.
   In re Williams, Roy Lee; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Div. F, No. 213,108; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 48874-KH.

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


text:
    STATE ex rel. Horace JENKINS v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2013-KH-2848.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Aug. 25, 2014.
   In re Jenkins, Horace; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. G, No. 335-263; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2013-K-1473.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Quentin O. LEWIS v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2013-KH-2849.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Aug. 25, 2014.
   In re Lewis, Quentin O.; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Mary, 16th Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 2010-183816; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2013 KA 0533.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Brian K. MASSEY v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2013-KH-2850.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Aug. 25, 2014.
   In re Massey, Brian K.; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. K, No. 06-4458; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 13-KH-851.

Denied.

JOHNSON, C.J., and HUGHES, J., would grant with order for an evidentiary hearing.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Jerry Anthony BRANDON.
    No. 2013-KO-2854.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Aug. 25, 2014.
   In re Brandon, Jerry Anthony; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Allen, 38rd Judicial District Court Div. B, No. CR2011-6016; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 13-442.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Rayshaud E. GREEN v. STATE of Louisiana.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Aug. 25, 2014.
   In re Green, Rayshaud E.; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. G, No. 482-742; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2013-K-1502.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Norris L. HENLEY v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2013-KH-2871.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Aug. 25, 2014.
   In re Henley, Norris L.; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. H, No. 505-052; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2013-K-1515.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Clifford C. ABSHIRE, III v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2013-KH-2883.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Aug. 25, 2014.
   In re Abshire III, Clifford C.; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 298,931; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 48,-842-KH.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Jason Allen LOMAX v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2013-KH-2890.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Aug. 25, 2014.
   In re Lomax, Jason Allen; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Rapides, 9th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 296207; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KH 13-00814.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. David HENRY v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2013-KH-2891.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Aug. 25, 2014.
   In re Henry, David; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Div. I, No. 281,828; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 48,-966-KH.

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


text:
    STATE ex rel. Jarvis ANGELLE v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2013-KH-2892.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Aug. 25, 2014.
   In re Angelle, Jarvis; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Lafayette, 15th Judicial District Court Div. K, No. CR-119602.1; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 11-508.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Hayes W. THOMPSON v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2013-KH-2894.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Aug. 25, 2014.
   In re Thompson, Hayes W.; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. B, No. 503-224; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2013-K-1500.

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 TURNER v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2013-KH-2903.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Aug. 25, 2014.
   In re Turner, Jeremy; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 01-652; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 13-KH-777.

Denied.

GUIDRY, J„ recused.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Jason WALSTRUM v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2013-KH-2904.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Aug. 25, 2014.
   In re Walstrum, Jason; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 452818; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2013 KW 1332.

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


text:
    STATE ex rel. Gregory FRANKS v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2013-KH-2905.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Aug. 25, 2014.
   In re Franks, Gregory; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Div. I, No. 281,489; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 48,-897-KH.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Kirk Douglas CHARLES v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2013-KH-2921.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Aug. 25, 2014.
   In re Charles, Kirk Douglas; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson Davis, 31st Judicial District Court Div. O, No. CR-604-77.

Denied. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8; State ex rel. Glover v. State, 93-2330 (La.9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189; cf. La.C.Cr.P. art. 351


text:
    STATE ex rel. Tommy MUTIN v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2013-KH-2922.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Aug. 25, 2014.
   In re Mutin, Tommy; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. H, No. 488-704; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Nos. 2013-K-0052, 2013-K-1363.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Ernest JOSEPH, III v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2013-KH-2923.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Aug. 25, 2014.
   In re Joseph III, Ernest; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. John, 40th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 10-CR-566; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 13-KH-883.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Laterrance U. HIGGINS v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2013-KH-2924.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Aug. 25, 2014.
   In re Higgins, Laterrance U.; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Ouachita, 4th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 17-F-0155; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 49,015-KH.

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


text:
    STATE ex rel. Lee Arthur ALLEN v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2013-OK-2927.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Aug. 25, 2014.
   In re Allen, Lee Arthur; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of West Feliciana, 20th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 13-WCR-245; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2013 CW1519.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Antoine CLARK v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2013-KH-2940.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Aug. 25, 2014.
   In re Clark, Antoine; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Lafayette, 15th Judicial District Court Div. L, No. 99174; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KH 13-0089.

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. Patrick STRAUGHTER v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2013-KH-2941.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Aug. 25, 2014.
   In re Straughter, Patrick; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. A, No. 369-645; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2013-K-1569.

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. Mark REYER.
    No. 2013-K-2951.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Aug. 25, 2014.
   In re State of Louisiana; — Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. A, No. 507-492; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2013-KA-0135.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Nolan LEBANKS v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2013-KH-2965.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Aug. 25, 2014.
   In re Lebanks, Nolan; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial. Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. L, Nos. 386-852, 387-071; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2013-K-1503.

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


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Tammy MOSS.
    No. 2013-K-2975.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Aug. 25, 2014.
   In re Moss, Tammy; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Div. 3, No. 286,818; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 48,289-KA.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Heather HODGES v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2013-KH-2995.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Aug. 25, 2014.
   In re Hodges, Heather; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Livingston, 21st Judicial District Court Div. G, No. 25424; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2013 KW 1444.

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. Phillip C. SKIPPER v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2013-KH-2996.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Aug. 25, 2014.
   In re Skipper, Phillip C.; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. G, No. 11-08-0298; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2013 KW 1357.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Darren STERLING.
    No. 2014-KO-0065.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Aug. 25, 2014.
   In re Sterling, Darren; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of St. John, 40th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. ll-CR-2; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, Nos. 13-KA-287.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Vori P. WEBB.
    No. 2014-K-0097.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Aug. 25, 2014.
   In re Webb, Vori P.; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 12-3751; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 13-KA-611.

_ . . Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Delbert CELESTINE.
    No. 2014-KO-0158.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Aug. 25, 2014.
   In re Celestine, Delbert; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. H, No. 506-478; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2012-KA-1541.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Justin Robert SIZEMORE.
    No. 2014-KO-0167.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Aug. 25, 2014.
   In re Sizemore, Justin Robert; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Vernon, 30th Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 75969 C/W 79570; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 13-529 C/W 13-530.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Bobby WEATHERTON.
    No. 2014-K-0207.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Aug. 25, 2014.
   In re Weatherton, Bobby; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Ascension, 23rd Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 24,715; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2013 KA 0755.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Alvis Noland BAHAM.
    No. 2014-KO-0211.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Aug. 25, 2014.
   In re Baham, Alvis Noland; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. F, No. 524559; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2013 KA 0694.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Preston NELSON.
    No. 2014-KO-0216.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Aug. 25, 2014.
   In re Nelson, Preston; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 10-11-0505; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2013 KA 0722.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Jonathan ARCHILLE.
    No. 2014-KO-0217.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Aug. 25, 2014.
   In re Archille, Jonathan; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 11 — 10— 0568; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2013 KA 0675.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Melvin SCOTT.
    No. 2014-KO-0221.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Aug. 25, 2014.
   In re Scott, Melvin; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. B, No. 496-601; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2012-KA-1603.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Darron D. WILLIAMS.
    No. 2014-KO-0222.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Aug. 25, 2014.
   In re Williams, Darron D.; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. B, No. 496-901; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2012-KA-1603.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Bobby WEATHERTON.
    No. 2014-KO-02038.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Aug. 25, 2014.
   In re Weatherton, Bobby; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Ascension, 23rd Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 24,715; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2013 KA 0755.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Darrol Bruce BROWN v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2014-KH-0035.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 12, 2014.
   In re Brown, Darrol Bruce; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Rapides, 9th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 261,509; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KH 13-00983.

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. 351. See also La.C.Cr.P. art. 980.4(D).


text:
    STATE ex rel. Joshua SADLER v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2014-KH-0037.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 12, 2014.
   In re Sadler, Joshua; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. G, No. 04-09-0430; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2013 KW1574.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Brandon LAVERGNE v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2014-KH-0040.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 12, 2014.
   In re Lavergne, Brandon; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Lafayette, 15th Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 138234; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Nos. KH 13-00488, KH 13-00695.

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


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Dejean PIERCE, Tyronne Stevenson.
    No. 2014-K-0056.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 12, 2014.
   In re State of Louisiana; — Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. B, No. 490-266; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2012-KA-0879.

Denied.

VICTORY and CLARK, JJ., would grant.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Larry MILES.
    No. 2014-K-0199.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 12, 2014.
   In re State of Louisiana; — Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Ascension, 23rd Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 27,616; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2013 KA 0635.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Michael DAVIS.
    No. 2014-KO-0226.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 12, 2014.
   In re Davis, Michael; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. F, No. 10-961; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 13-KA-495.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Kevin WISE.
    No. 2014-KO-0253.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 12, 2014.
   In re Wise, Kevin; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. P, No. 12-632; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 13-KA-247.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Myra KELLY.
    No. 2014-K-0269.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 12, 2014.
   In re State of Louisiana; — Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. D, No. 454-3036; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2013-KA-0715.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Gerald K. STEWART.
    No. 2014-KO-0296.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 12, 2014.
   In re Stewart, Gerald K; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. K, No. 507-349; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2013-KA-0779.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Cody SMOOT.
    No. 2014-KO-0297.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 12, 2014.
   In re Smoot, Cody; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. L, No. 11-4275; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 13-KA-453.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Gerald K. STEWART.
    No. 2014-KO-0300.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 12, 2014.
   In re Stewart, Gerald K; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. K, No. 507-349; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2013-KA-0779.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Larry ROBAIR.
    No. 2014-K-0322.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 12, 2014.
   In re Robair, Larry; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. C, No. 477-695; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2013-KA-0337.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Maurice A. LAUGAND.
    No. 2014-K-0334.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 12, 2014.
   In re State of Louisiana; — Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. L, No. 513-238; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2013-KA-0795.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Kedrick JOHNSON.
    No. 2014-KO-0365.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 12, 2014.
   In re Johnson, Kedrick; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. H, No. 486-949 C/W 486-949; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2013-KA-0947.

Denied


text:
    Olivia DUTREY, Individually and on Behalf of the Estate of Junius Bingham and Jeanne Bingham, Individually and on Behalf of the Estate of Junius Bingham v. PLAQUEMINE MANOR NURSING HOME, Linda Christy, T. River, Paulina Johnson, Jessica Mitchell, Chassity Delouch, La’Nita Domino, Letha Wilson, Stephanie Adams and XYZ Insurance Company.
    No. 2014-CC-0472.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 12, 2014.
   In re Plaquemine Manor Nursing Home Inc.; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Iberville, 18th Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 71404; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2013 CW 1922.

Denied.

VICTORY and GUIDRY, JJ., would grant.


text:
    Claudine LABARRERA, et ux. v. BOYD GAMING CORPORATION, et al.
    No. 2014-C-0897.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 12, 2014.
   In re Labarrera, Alberto; Labarrera, Claudine et ux.; — Plaintiff(s); Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Calcasieu, 14th Judicial District Court Div. G, No. 2009-004096 to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 13-629.

Denied.


text:
    FEDERAL TRUST BANK v. Tracy Glorioso SHEPPARD, Administratrix of the Succession of George E. Annis, Chardonnay Village Condominium Association.
    No. 2014-C-0984.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 12, 2014.
   In re Chardonnay Village Condominium Association, Inc.; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 659-207; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 13-CA-429.

Denied.

WEIMER, J., would grant.


text:
    FEDERAL TRUST BANK v. Tracy Glorioso SHEPPARD, Administratrix of the Succession of George E. Annis, Chardonnay Village Condominium Association.
    No. 2014-C-0985.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 12, 2014.
   In re Tracy Glorioso Sheppard, Adminis-tratrix of the succession of George E. An-nis; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 659-207; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 13-CA-429.

Denied.

WEIMER, J., would grant.

2


text:
    Jerry J. SUIRE and Antonia G. Suire, et al. v. OLEUM OPERATING COMPANY, L.C.
    No. 2014-C-0987.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 12, 2014.
   In re Haller, Paula; Haller, Steven; Price, Preston Andrews; Price, Susan R.; — Other(s); Applying For Writ of Cer-tiorari and/or Review, Parish of Calcasieu, 14th Judicial District Court Div. H, No. 2007-697; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 13-736.

Denied.


text:
    Matilda EDISON v. LOUISIANA CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION. Alvin Mcmillian v. Louisiana Citizens Property Insurance Corporation. Percy Jefferson v. Louisiana Citizens Property Insurance Corporation. Louis Bailey v. Louisiana Citizens Property Insurance Corporation. Brenda Stephens Espinoza v. Louisiana Citizens Property Insurance Corporation. Curley Johnson, Sr. v. Louisiana Citizens Property Insurance Corporation.
    No. 2014-CC-0995.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 12, 2014.
   In re Louisiana Citizens Property Insurance Corporation; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. G, No. 2010-1483; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Nos. 2013-C-1672, 2013-C-1672 C/W 2013-C-1693 C/W 2013-C-1694 C/W 2013-C-1695 C/W 2013-C-1696 C/W 2014-C-0136.

Denied.

VICTORY and WEIMER, JJ., would grant.


text:
    Matilda EDISON v. LOUISIANA CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION. Alvin McMillian v. Louisiana Citizens Property Insurance Corporation. Percy Jefferson v. Louisiana Citizens Property Insurance Corporation. Louis Bailey v. Louisiana Citizens Property Insurance Corporation. Brenda Stephens Espinoza v. Louisiana Citizens Property Insurance Corporation. Curley Johnson, Sr. v. Louisiana Citizens Property Insurance Corporation.
    No. 2014-CC-0996.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 12, 2014.
   In re Louisiana Citizens Property Insurance Corporation; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. D, No. 2010-4148; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2013-C-1672 C/W 2013-C-1693 C/W 2013-C-1694 C/W 2013-C-1695 C/W 2013-C-1696 C/W 2014-C-0136.

Denied.

VICTORY and WEIMER, JJ., would grant.


text:
    Matilda EDISON v. LOUISIANA CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION. Alvin McMillian v. Louisiana Citizens Property Insurance Corporation. Percy Jefferson v. Louisiana Citizens Property Insurance Corporation. Louis Bailey v. Louisiana Citizens Property Insurance Corporation. Brenda Stephens Espinoza v. Louisiana Citizens Property Insurance Corporation. Curley Johnson, Sr. v. Louisiana Citizens Property Insurance Corporation.
    No. 2014-CC-0997.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 12, 2014.
   In re Louisiana Citizens Property Insurance Corporation; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. J, No. 2010-4213; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2013-C-1672 C/W 2013-C-1693 C/W 2013-C-1694 C/W 2013-C-1695 C/W 2013-C-1696 C/W 2014-C-0136.

Denied.

VICTORY and WEIMER, JJ., would grant.


text:
    Matilda EDISON v. LOUISIANA CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION. Alvin McMillian v. Louisiana Citizens Property Insurance Corporation. Percy Jefferson v. Louisiana Citizens Property Insurance Corporation. Louis Bailey v. Louisiana Citizens Property Insurance Corporation. Brenda Stephens Espinoza v. Louisiana Citizens Property Insurance Corporation. Curley Johnson, Sr. v. Louisiana Citizens Property Insurance Corporation.
    No. 2014-CC-0998.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 12, 2014.
   In re Louisiana Citizens Property Insurance Corporation; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. N, No. 2009-9771; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2013-C-1672 C/W 2013-C-169S C/W 2013-C-1694 C/W 2013-

C-1695 C/W 2013-C-1696 C/W 2014-C-0136.

Denied.

VICTORY and WEIMER, JJ., would grant.


text:
    Matilda EDISON v. LOUISIANA CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION. Alvin McMillian v. Louisiana Citizens Property Insurance Corporation. Percy Jefferson v. Louisiana Citizens Property Insurance Corporation. Louis Bailey v. Louisiana Citizens Property Insurance Corporation. Brenda Stephens Espinoza v. louisiana Citizens Property Insurance Corporation. Curley Johnson, Sr. v. Louisiana Citizens Property Insurance Corporation.
    No. 2014-CC-0999.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 12, 2014.
   In re Louisiana Citizens Property Insurance Corporation; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. J, No. 2010-2817; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2013-C-1672 C/W 2013-C-1693 C/W 2013-C-1694 C/W 2013-C-1695 C/W 2013-C-1696 C/W 2014-C-0136.

Denied.

VICTORY and WEIMER, JJ., would grant.


author: JOY COSSICH LOBRANO, Judge.

text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Brandon DAVIS.
    No. 2011-KA-1667.
    Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.
    Jan. 16, 2013.
    Leon A. Cannizzaro, Jr., District Attorney, Matthew C. Kirkham, Assistant District Attorney, New Orleans, LA, for State of Louisiana/Appellee.
    Mary Constance Hanes, Louisiana Appellate Project, New Orleans, LA, for Defendant/Appellant.
    (Court composed of Chief Judge JAMES F. McKAY, III, Judge EDWIN A. LOMBARD, Judge JOY COSSICH LOBRANO).
   JOY COSSICH LOBRANO, Judge.

| defendant, Brandon Davis, was charged by bill of information with one count of armed robbery, a violation of La. R.S. 14:64, and one count of attempted armed robbery, a violation of La. R.S. 14:27, 14:64. He pled not guilty. Prior to trial, the State filed a motion to invoke the firearm sentencing provision of La.C.Cr.P. art. 893.3. Following a trial, the jury found Davis guilty of attempted armed robbery on each count.

Davis filed motions for a post verdict judgment of acquittal and a new trial, which the court denied on June 30, 2011. On the same date, the trial court sentenced Davis to serve fifteen years at hard labor on each count. The sentences were to run concurrent, and Davis received credit for time served.

Pursuant to the Habitual Offender Law, La. R.S. 15:529.1, the State charged Davis as a second felony offender. Following the multiple bill hearing, the trial court adjudicated Davis a second felony offender, vacated the previous sentences, and sentenced him to serve twenty-five years at hard labor on each count with credit for time served. The sentences were to run concurrent with any other sentence Davis was serving. Davis appealed his convictions and sentences.

li>New Orleans Police Department Detective Kelly Morel was the lead detective in this case. She testified that on September 29, 2010, she investigated an armed robbery that occurred at 1521 Crete Street. The victims of the robbery, a male identified as Tim Wehrle, and a female identified as Candida Pagan, told her that they were walking eastbound on Crete Street, when three unknown black males riding eastbound on bicycles told them “good night.” The victims responded, telling the three males “good night.” The males proceeded to dismount from their bicycles, brandish guns, and rob the victims. Wehrle informed Detective Morel that his keys and his wallet, containing two debit cards and a twenty dollar bill, were stolen. However, nothing was taken from Pagan.

When asked to describe the crime scene, Detective Morel noted that the crime occurred on a “fairly well-lit,” single lane street. Detective Morel did not apprehend any perpetrators on the evening of the incident; however, a suspect was eventually developed. The initial suspect, Jonathan Kuykendall, had been arrested for two prior armed robberies in the area and matched the description of one of the perpetrators. Detective Morel composed a six person color photographic lineup which included Kuykendall’s photograph and five other subjects with similar characteristics. The victims were separated and presented with two different lineups. Neither Wehrle nor Pagan was able to make an identification based on the lineup that was presented, and, at that point, Kuyken-dall was eliminated as a suspect.

According to Detective Morel, Davis was later developed as a suspect. Based on information, Detective Morel composed two more lineups that included individuals with similar characteristics. This time both Wehrle and Pagan [¡¡identified Davis as a suspect out of the photographic lineup. Once the victims made the identification, Detective Morel asked them to sign the front of the lineup and put their names, the time, and date on the back of the lineup.

Detective Morel also testified that she developed the name of Jonathan West as a suspect during this investigation. She again presented the victims with another set of lineups; however, the victims were unable to make an identification. As to the photo identification procedure, Detective Morel explained that the photo lineups were performed at Wehrle’s house and the victims were in different rooms when the selection occurred. She presented the lineups first to Wehrle, who made his identification, and then to Pagan, who made hers.

On cross examination, Detective Morel testified the robbers were described as three black males, about sixteen to twenty years old, all wearing dark clothing, two with braids, and one with a short haircut. She prepared the arrest warrant and canvassed the area by knocking on doors, driving around, and looking for possible witnesses. Detective Morel received information from NOPD Detective McQueen in developing Davis as a suspect. When Pagan positively identified Davis, she told Detective Morel that he was the one who pointed the gun at her head and said “someone’s going to get shot tonight.”

NOPD Detective Robert Stoltz testified that he and his partner were patrolling the Fairgrounds neighborhood on the night of October 6, 2012, when they were flagged down by some neighborhood residents. Based on the conversation, he radioed into a dispatcher and subsequently performed an investigatory stop on a male (Davis) who was riding a bike a block from where the officers were flagged down. Detective Stoltz described Davis as having dreadlocks and wearing a baseball cap. After obtaining Davis’ name and address, |4he frisked Davis but found no firearms. After Detective Stolz determined that Davis was not wanted by the police, he allowed him ride away on his bike. Detective Stoltz could not positively identify Davis in court as the person he stopped on October 6, 2012.

Wehrle testified that on September 29, 2010, he and Pagan were walking down the street to his house when they noticed “three young black men on bikes” and moved to the sidewalk. Once the couple passed their car and got into the driveway, two of the men put their bikes down and pulled out weapons. The third man eventually got off of his bike, came from behind, went through their pockets, and took Wehrle’s car keys and wallet. Although Wehrle emphasized the other two individuals pointed guns directly at the couple during the robbery, he said he would not be able to identify either of them in court. However, he remembered meeting with the police and being presented with photographs. Wehrle said he and Pagan were not intoxicated that night and he believed the guns utilized in the robbery were silver and resembled Glocks. He described the perpetrators as individuals with medium builds, long black tee shirts, and dark shorts. He also noted that they were about six feet tall and probably one hundred fifty pounds, and that one of the individuals had dreadlocks. Wehrle verified that he was shown lineups other than the one that he signed; however, in the other lineups he did not recognize any of the individuals. He testified that no one told him whom to select and that Pagan did not tell him whom she had picked.

Pagan corroborated Wehrle’s testimony regarding the facts of the robbery. However, unlike Wehrle, Pagan identified Davis at trial as one of the robbers. Pagan said Davis, while pointing the gun at the couple, told them to give him what they had or “someone’s going to get shot.”

IfiOnce the men were satisfied that the couple had nothing else, the three men got onto their bikes and fled. Pagan testified that she had focused on Davis’ face during the robbery, explaining that the only thing going through her head during the ordeal was “don’t kill us” and “I need to remember your face.” Pagan provided the police with a description of the assailants on the evening of the incident. She also recalled that on October 5 she had met with Detective Morel, who presented her with a photo lineup. Pagan verified her signature on the photo of the assailant. She explained that Detective Morel interviewed her and Wehrle in the same room; however, she did not see whom he selected from the photo lineup. She also did not hear or see anything that influenced her decision.

Davis testified that at time of the robbery he was living in New Orleans East with his girlfriend, pursuing his GED, and had a job at a company called Graphics. He claimed he never owned a gun and did not like guns. According to Davis, the night of the robbery, he was at Stallings Park playing basketball until about 7:00 p.m., and then went to a friend’s house on Dorgenois Street. After leaving the friend’s house, he caught the bus back to New Orleans East. He acknowledged that he rode his bike to the playground that evening, but he denied robbing anyone or knowing who committed the robbery in question. He left his bike at his friend’s house when he caught the bus to go home.

A review of the record reveals two patent errors with respect to Davis’ sentence. The record shows the trial court denied the defendant’s motions for new trial and for post-verdict judgment of acquittal on the day of sentencing. Under La. C. Cr. P. art. 873, a sentence shall not be imposed until twenty-four hours after a motion for new trial has been overruled. Moreover, Davis did not assert that an | fiexcessive sentence was an assignment of error. He was also resentenced as a multiple offender. This Court has held that the failure to observe the delay would be deemed harmless error where the defendant did not challenge his sentence on appeal. See State v. Riley, 2005-1311 (La.App. 4 Cir. 9/20/06), 941 So.2d 618. Accordingly, in the present case where no error is raised as to the defendant’s sentence, the failure of the trial court to observe the delay period is harmless error.

The second patent error reveals that the sentence imposed by the trial court is illegally lenient. Davis was initially sentenced to fifteen years at hard labor on each count. After being adjudicated a second offender, the trial court vacated the original sentences and resentenced the defendant under the multiple offender statute to twenty-five years at hard labor on each count. However, La. R.S. 15:529.1(G) provides that all sentences imposed under the statute are to be served without benefit of probation or suspension of sentence. However, paragraph A of La. R.S. 15:301.1 provides that in instances where the statutory restrictions are not recited at sentencing, they are included in the sentence given, regardless of whether or not they are imposed by the sentencing court.

Furthermore, in State v. Williams, 2000-1725 (La.11/28/01), 800 So.2d 790, the Louisiana Supreme Court ruled that paragraph A of the statute “self-activates the correction and eliminates the need to remand for a ministerial correction of an illegally lenient sentence^] which may result from the failure of the sentencing court to impose punishment in conformity with that provided in the statute.” Id. at 10, 800 So.2d at 799. Hence, this Court need take no action to correct the district court’s failure to specify that Davis’ sentence be served without the benefit of probation or suspension of sentence. The correction is statutorily ^effected. See also State v. Phillips, 2003-0304, p. 3(La.App. 4 Cir. 7/23/03), 853 So.2d 675, 677.

DISCUSSION

Davis’ sole assignment of error is that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction for attempted armed robbery because the State failed to negate any reasonable probability of misidentification. Specifically, Davis asserts that the identification was unreliable because neither witness had an opportunity to view the young men who committed this crime due to the dimness of the street lighting and the brevity of the encounter. Davis emphasizes that Wehrle “blanked out” during the incident and that Pagan could only give a general description of one of the men involved in the incident. On the other hand, the State argues that the evidence was sufficient to negate any reasonable probability of misidentification.

Generally, when assessing the sufficiency of evidence to support a conviction, the reviewing court must determine whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, a rational fact finder could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 309, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 2784, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). This review must include the whole record, as a rational fact finder does. State v. Mussall, 523 So.2d 1305,1310 (La.1988). If rational finders of fact could disagree as to the interpretation of the evidence, the rational trier’s view of all of the evidence most favorable to the prosecution must be adopted. Id. It is not the function of the appellate court to assess the credibility of witnesses or reweigh the evidence. State v. Johnson, 619 So.2d 1102 (La.App. 4 Cir.1993), citing State v. Rosiere, 488 So.2d 965, 968 (La.1986). Credibility determinations, as well as the weight to be attributed to the evidence, are soundly within the province of the fact finder. State v. Brumfield, 93-2404, p. 5-6 (La.App.8 4 Cir. 6/15/94), 639 So.2d 312, 316. Moreover, conflicting testimony as to factual matters is a question of weight of the evidence, not sufficiency. State v. Jones, 537 So.2d 1244, 1249 (La.App. 4 Cir.1989). Like all factual matters, credibility determinations are entitled to great weight and will not be disturbed unless contrary to the evidence. Id., citing State v. Vessell, 450 So.2d 938 (La.1984). Absent internal contradiction or irreconcilable conflict with the physical evidence, the testimony of a single witness, if believed by the fact finder, is sufficient to support a factual conclusion. State v. Marshall, 2004-3139, p. 9 (La.11/29/06), 943 So.2d 362, 369.

Furthermore, the State is required to negate any reasonable probability of misidentification. State v. Weary, 2003-3067 (La.4/24/06), 931 So.2d 297. The appellate court also reviews the reliability of an identification in accordance with the factors set out Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98, 97 S.Ct. 2243, 53 L.Ed.2d 140 (1977), which are: (1) the opportunity of the witness to view the assailant at the time of the crime; (2) the witness’s degree of attention; (3) the accuracy of the witness’s prior description of the assailant; (4) the level of certainty demonstrated by the witness; and (5) the length of time between the crime and the confrontation. State v. Stewart, 2004-2219, p. 6 (La.App. 4 Cir. 6/29/05), 909 So.2d 636, 639.

Contrary to Davis’ argument, reviewing this case utilizing the Manson factors establishes that Pagan’s identification of Davis was reliable. Although the trial testimony indicates the street lighting was dim, Pagan testified that she focused on the assailant’s face during the robbery because she needed to remember it in the event she lived. This testimony alone establishes that Pagan had an opportunity to view the assailant at the time of the crime.

LThe testimony also indicates Pagan maintained a great deal of attention during the robbery, as she provided the police with a description of the assailants shortly after the incident. In fact, both Pagan and Wehrle were able to give a good recitation of the facts that happened leading up to the robbery. Pagan testified that the robbery was three to four minutes long, and both victims testified that the three men involved in this incident spoke to them prior to robbing them. These factors indicate the victims were attentive during the robbery.

Although Wehrle “blacked out” during the robbery, Pagan was able to provide the investigating officers with a description of the assailant, noting he was wearing a black tee shirt, black cap, twisted chin length dreadlocks, and was her height. Pagan was also very certain in her selection of Davis as the assailant from the photo lineup.

Finally, even though the record indicates a substantial amount of time elapsed between the time that the crime was committed and the time Pagan viewed the photographic lineups, in view of the verdict, the jury believed her testimony. As noted by this court, a fact finder’s credibility determination is entitled to great weight and should not be disturbed unless it is contrary to the evidence. State v. Johnson, 2009-0259 (La.App. 4 Cir. 9/16/09), 22 So.3d 205 . In this instance, the trial court’s determination will not be disturbed.

Because we conclude the State negated any reasonable probability of misidentification, Davis’ convictions and sentences are affirmed.

AFFIRMED

      . Writ den. 2009-2263 (La.4/16/10), 31 So.3d 1054.


author: THERIOT, J.

text:
    Vennette SHERIDAN, v. PRIDE & HOPE MINISTRY FAMILY SUPPORT SERVICES.
    No. 2013 CA 1666.
    Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.
    May 2, 2014.

      Vennette Sheridan, Angie, LA, Plaintiff/Appellant, In Proper Person.
    Stephen W. Brooks, Jr., Richard J. Voelker, Covington, LA, for Defendant/Ap-pellee, Pride & Hope Ministry Family Support Services.
    Before KUHN, HIGGINBOTHAM, and THERIOT, JJ.
   THERIOT, J.

|2The plaintiff-appellant, Vennette Sheridan, seeks reversal of the summary judgment of the Office of Workers’ Compensation, District 6 (OWC), granted in favor of the appellee, Pride & Hope Ministry Family Support Services (P & H), which dismissed her disputed claim for compensation with prejudice. For the following reasons, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Ms. Sheridan filed a disputed claim for compensation against P & H on November 5, 2012. In her claim, she alleges that on or about July 24, 2012, while employed by P & H as a medical assistant, she injured her back, shoulders, and neck while lifting and transferring a patient. She reported her injury to P & H on August 3, 2012, one day after seeking medical attention for her injury. Ms. Sheridan complained that P & H did not pay her wage benefits after sustaining her injury, that P & H refused to authorize medical treatment authorized by her physicians, and that she was not placed on total temporary disability status. Ms. Sheridan also requested that statutory penalties and attorney fees with interest be paid pursuant to the Louisiana Workers’ Compensation Act, La. R.S. 23:1021 et seq.

Upon learning Ms. Sheridan’s medical and injury history through discovery, P & H claimed in its amended pretrial statement that Ms. Sheridan had been fraudulent in her statements about her prior medical history, since it was discovered that she had been injured in four automobile accidents from 1991 to 2007, where she made injury claims to her cervical, neck and head area.

While Ms. Sheridan had denied ever being placed on restriction of activity, P & H claimed it had discovered that she had once missed work due to one of the prior automobile accidents. P & H claims that Ms. Sheridan’s |aphysician, Dr. Paul Doty, had examined her and released her to return to work on January 1, 2013; however, Ms. Sheridan never returned to work. P & H also claims that Dr. Doty had never specified any kind of treatment for her injuries. P & H further argued that Ms. Sheridan cannot prove she sustained a work-related injury since she did not report the injury until August 3, 2012, more than one week after Ms. Sheridan claimed it happened. P & H also alleged that the patient Ms. Sheridan had lifted when she supposedly injured herself denied seeing or hearing her complain of an injury. Since no medical records exist from July 24, 2012, and since she had been allegedly untruthful about her previous injuries, P & H argued Ms. Sheridan cannot prove any injury occurred on July 24, 2012.

P & H filed a motion for summary judgment based on the contention that Ms. Sheridan could not carry her burden at trial to prove she sustained a work-related injury. The hearing was held by OWC on May 24, 2013. Ms. Sheridan, who was unrepresented, did not appear in court. OWC found that Ms. Sheridan could not sustain her burden of proof at trial and ruled in favor of P & H, dismissing her claim with prejudice.

Following the ruling, Ms. Sheridan sent a handwritten letter to OWC requesting that the matter be reinstated since she was unable to attend the hearing due to hardship. OWC reinstated the matter on July 3, 2013. OWC then vacated the reinstatement on July 15, 2013, and advised Ms. Sheridan that she could appeal the judgment signed on May 28, 2013. Ms. Sheridan filed a handwritten, pro se motion for a devolutive appeal on July 25, 2013. P & H timely filed an answer to Ms. Sheridan’s appeal, seeking modification of OWC’s judgment to include a finding that Ms. Sheridan violated La. R.S. 23:1208, plus defense expenses and costs.

I ¿ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR

As an initial matter, we note that claimant’s pro se brief does not comply with the requirements of Uniform Rules, Court of Appeal, Rule 2-12.4. It contains no assignments of error, no record references, and no jurisdictional statement. However, the courts of this State have considered workers’ compensation claimants’ nonconforming briefs in instances when they are filed by pro se claimants. See Putman v. Quality Distribution, Inc., 11-0306 (La.App. 1 Cir. 9/30/11), 77 So.3d 318, 320; Costales v. Turner Indust., 05-36 (La.App. 5 Cir. 5/31/05); 905 So.2d 410, 412, writ denied, 05-1707 (La.1/9/06); 918 So.2d 1056. Because Ms. Sheridan is representing herself in this case, we will consider the merits of her appeal, despite the improper form of her appellant brief. See Franklin v. Slidell Police Dept, 12-0539 (La.App. 1 Cir. 12/31/12), 112 So.3d 257, 261, writ denied, 13-0471 (La.4/5/13), 110 So.3d 592; See also Machado v. Baker Concrete Const., 13-273 (La.App. 5 Cir. 10/30/13), 128 So.3d 477, 480.

The content of Ms. Sheridan’s two-page, handwritten brief indicates that she is dissatisfied with OWC’s ruling on the motion for summary judgment. As such, we will review that ruling and determine if any reversible errors exist.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Ordinarily, in workers’ compensation cases, the appropriate standard of review to be applied by the appellate court to OWC’s findings of fact is the “manifest error-clearly wrong” standard. Dean v. Southmark Construction, 03-1051, (La.7/6/04), 879 So.2d 112, 117; See also Chatagnier v. 1st A Southeast Incs, L.L.C., 12-1314 (La.App. 1 Cir. 4/26/13), 115 So.3d 1167, 1171, writ denied, 13-1186 (La.8/30/13), 120 So.3d 270. However, because the issues before us have been raised in a | .¡summary judgment proceeding, we must review the ruling de novo, using the same criteria applied by OWC. Carral v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc., 05-1482, p. 4 (La.App. 1 Cir. 6/9/06), 938 So.2d 799, 801; Guidry v. Stabil Drill Specialist, 05-1562, p. 3 (La.App. 3 Cir. 5/3/06), 929 So.2d 814, 816.

DISCUSSION

Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure art. 966(C)(2) states as follows:

The burden of proof [in a motion for summary judgment] remains with the movant. However, if the movant will not bear the burden of proof at trial on the matter that is before the court on the motion for summary judgment, the movant’s burden' on the motion does not require him to negate all essential elements of the adverse party’s claim, action, or defense, but rather to point out to the court that there is an absence of factual support for one or more elements essential to the adverse party’s claim, action, or defense. Thereafter, if the party fails to produce factual support sufficient to establish that he will be able to satisfy his evidentiary burden of proof at trial, there is no genuine issue of material fact.

In the instant case, the movant was the defendant, P & H. Since P & H would not bear the burden of proof at trial, it only had to point out to OWC that Ms. Sheridan did not have factual support in one essential element of her claim to meet her burden of proof at trial. At the hearing on the motion, P & H presented the first report of Ms. Sheridan’s injury dated August 3, 2012, her medical records, an affidavit of the patient she lifted on July 24, 2012, Ms. Sheridan’s deposition, and Dr. Doty’s examination records of Ms. Sheridan, among other exhibits. After reviewing these exhibits and the record as a whole, we find that OWC was correct to grant the motion for summary judgment.

The evidence presented to OWC shows that there is no proof that Ms. Sheridan was injured on July 24, 2012, outside of her own allegations. Since Ms. Sheridan did not initially seek treatment until August 2, 2012, nine days after she claims to have been injured, and no report of the injury Uprior to that date was admitted, OWC was right to conclude that Ms. Sheridan had no corroborating proof that her injury occurred while in the scope of her employment with P & H. Additionally, the affidavit of the patient that Ms. Sheridan lifted states he did not hear or see Ms. Sheridan act as though or say she was hurt after moving him. In her deposition, Ms. Sheridan denies having previous injuries to her back, neck, and shoulders, except for injuries sustained in an automobile approximately ten years earlier, but her statements are contradicted by her medical records. Since Ms. Sheridan was absent at the hearing, she failed to produce evidence to show that she could in fact meet her evidentiary burden at trial.

CONCLUSION

P & H sufficiently proved to OWC that Ms. Sheridan would be unable to prove at trial that her injury occurred while in the scope of her employment. While P & H questioned Ms. Sheridan’s credibility at the motion hearing, it was enough to point out that she lacked any evidence to prove the injury occurred -at the time she claimed.

DECREE

The ruling of the Office of Workers’ Compensation on the motion for summary judgment in favor of the appellee, Pride & Hope Ministry Family Support Services, is affirmed. All costs of this appeal are assessed to Ms. Sheridan.

AFFIRMED.

      . In its amendment to its pretrial statement, P & H first made the claim that Ms. Sheridan intentionally made false statements concerning her medical history in violation of La. R.S. 23:1208 and 23:1208.1. thereby forfeiting her right to file a claim and making her liable for penalties and attorney fees. In the hearing for the motion for summary judgment, OWC only ruled on the motion itself and stated that "[t]he issue of fraud is not ruled on.” Since P & H's fraud claim would require its own hearing which has not yet been undertaken by OWC, we cannot consider the issue here nor modify OWC's judgment to include an award for penalties or attorney fees as requested by P & H in its answer to Ms. Sheridan’s appeal. See Teano v. Electrical Const. Co., 02-2032, pp. 11-12 (La.App. 1 Cir. 5/9/03), 849 So.2d 714, 723.