author: PER CURIAM

text:
    IN RE: William A. ROE
    NO. 2017-OB-1862
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    12/15/2017
   ON APPLICATION FOR READMISSION

PER CURIAM

I,This ¡proceeding arises out of an application for readmission to the practice of law filed by petitioner, William A. Roe, a disbarred attorney.

UNDERLYING FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Until 2008, petitioner served as a judge of the 25th Judicial District Court for the Parish of Plaquemines. After allegations surfaced that he “double-dipped^’ on expense ' reimbursements relating to the 2005, 2006, and 2007 Summer School for Judges in San Destín, Florida, petitioner was indicted on - felony criminal charges and subsequently convicted of three counts of unauthorized use of a movable. On October 14, 2009, we placed petitioner on interim suspension based upon his conviction of a serious crime. In re: Roe, 09-2117 (La. 10/14/09), 22 So.3d 867. On January 6, 2010, petitioner was sentenced to serve, six months in jail with three months suspended, followed by eighteen months of active probation. He was also fined $1,500 and ordered to perform 240 hours of community service.

On January 22, 2010, the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (“ODC”) filed- formal charges' against petitioner arising out of his conviction. Following the finality of petitioner’s conviction, the parties filed a joint petition for consent discipline in this court, proposing . that petitionér be. disbarred, retroactive to October 14, 2009, the date of his interim suspension. We accepted the petition for consent discipline on March 2, 2012. In re: Roe, 12-0264 (La. 3/2/12), 82 So.3d 266.

LOn August 24, 2016, petitioner filed the instant application for readmission with the disciplinary board, alleging he has complied with the readmission criteria set forth in Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 24(E). The ODC filed a response to petitioner’s readmission application, taking no position. Accordingly, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 24(F) and (G), the matter was referred for a formal hearing before a hearing committee.

Following the hearing, the hearing committee recommended that readmission be denied. Petitioner objected to this recommendation, and the matter was reviewed by the disciplinary board. The board recommended that petitioner be readmitted to the practice of law, Neither petitioner nor the ODC filed an objection to the board’s recommendation.

DISCUSSION

After considering the record in its entirety, we find petitioner has met his burden of proving that he is entitled to be readmitted to the practice of law. Petitioner has demonstrated that he recognizes the wrongfulness and seriousness of the misconduct for which he was disbarred. Petitioner has also shown that he possesses the requisite competence, honesty,.and integrity to be readmitted to the practice of law. ,

Accordingly, we will order that petitioner be readmitted to the practice of law.-

DECREE

Upon review of the findings and recommendation of the hearing committee and disciplinary board, and considering the record, it is ordered that William A. Roe, Louisiana Bar Roll number 11384, be immediately readmitted to the practice of law in Louisiana. All costs of these proceedings are assessed against petitioner.


source: Caselaw Access Project

license: Public Domain

text:
    Henry Norris WILLIAMS, et al. v. The DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY, et al.
    NO. 2017-CC-1712
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    12/15/2017
   PER CURIAM

I,Granted. In light of the subsequent mistrial, the extraordinary remedy of a virile share settlement credit is no longer necessary. See Raley v. Carter, 412 So.2d 1045 (La. 1982). Accordingly, the judgment of the court of appeal is vacated and set aside, and the case is remanded for further proceedings.


text:
    IN RE: Roger Wayne KITCHENS
    NO. 2017-B-1870
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    12/15/2017
   ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS

PER CURIAM

hThe Office of Disciplinary Counsel (“ODC”) commenced an investigation into allegations that respondent engaged in professional misconduct, including neglecting his clients’ legal matters, failing to communicate with his clients, failing to refund unearned fees, failing to return client files upon request, practicing law while ineligible to do so, and engaging in criminal conduct by driving under the influence of alcohol. Respondent failed to coqperate with the ODC in its investigation. Following the filing of formal charges, respondent and the ODC submitted a joint petition for consent discipline. Having reviewed the petition,

IT IS ORDERED that the Petition for Consent Discipline be accepted and that Roger Wayne Kitchens, Louisiana Bar Roll number 25130, be suspended from the practice of law for a period of three years, retroactive to October 19, 2016, the date of his interim suspension. It is further ordered that respondent shall comply with the conditions set forth in the petition for consent discipline. ■

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


text:
    IN RE: Erich Webb BAILEY
    NO. 2017-B-1693
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    12/15/2017
   ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING

PER CURIAM

h Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 21, the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (“ODC”) has filed a petition seeking the imposition of reciprocal discipline against respondent, Erich Webb Bailey, an attorney licensed to practice law in the States of Louisiana and Tennessee, based upon an interim suspension imposed by the Supreme Court óf Tennessee.

UNDERLYING FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On July 17, 2017, the Supreme Court of Tennessee issued an order immediately suspending respondent’s license to practice law for failure to comply with the court’s order of June 28, 2017 directing respondent to contact the Tennessee Lawyers Assistance Program (“TLAP”) for an evaluation to determine his capacity to practice law or to defend himself in disciplinary proceedings.

After receiving notice of the order of temporary suspension, the ODC filed a motion to initiate reciprocal discipline proceedings in Louisiana, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 21. A certified copy of the decision and order of the Supreme Court of Tennessee was attached to the motion. On October 10, 2017, this court rendered an order giving respondent thirty days to demonstrate why the imposition of identical discipline in this state would be unwarranted. Respondent failed to file any response in this court.

^DISCUSSION

Following his failure to comply with a court order directing him to contact TLAP for an evaluation, the Supreme Court of Tennessee suspended respondent from the practice of law in that state pending further proceedings. The imposition of identical discipline in Louisiana is clearly appropriate, and there is no suggestion otherwise upon the face of the record. Accordingly, we will place respondent on interim suspension.

DECREE

Considering the Petition to Initiate Reciprocal Discipline Proceedings filed by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel and the record filed herein, it is ordered that respondent, Erich Webb Bailey, Louisiana Bar Roll number 32822, be and he hereby is suspended from the practice of law on an interim basis, pending further orders of this court.


author: PER CURIAM:

text:
    STATE EX REL. Dermaine NORMAN v. STATE of Louisiana
    No. 2017-KH-1882
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    12/15/2017
   ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE FORTIETH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF ST. JOHN THE BAPTIST

PER CURIAM:

JjWRIT NOT CONSIDERED. Petitioner has not demonstrated that he sought review in the court(s) below before filing in this Court nor shown the “extraordinary circumstances” that would justify bypassing that level of review. La,S.Ct.R. X § 5(b).


text:
    STATE EX REL. Lance McKeith LEWIS v. STATE of Louisiana
    No. 2017-KH-1881
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    12/15/2017
   ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE FOURTEENTH, JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF CAL-CASIEU

PER CURIAM:

JjWRIT NOT CONSIDERED. Petitioner has not demonstrated that he sought review in the court(s) below before filing in this Court nor shown the “extraordinary circumstances” that would justify bypassing that level of review. La.S.Ct.R. X § 5(b).


author: PER CURIAM:'

text:
    STATE EX REL. Vincent SMITH v. STATE of Louisiana
    No. 2017-KH-1851
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    12/15/2017
   ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TQ THE TWENTY-FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF JEFFERSON

PER CURIAM:'

I,WRIT NOT CONSIDERED. Untimely filed pursuant to La.S.Ct.R. X § 5.

Relator has now exhausted the right to obtain post-conviction relief in state court. Similar to federal habeas relief, see 28 U.S.C. § 2244, Louisiana post-conviction procedure envisions the filing of a second or successive application only under the narrow circumstances provided in La. C.Cr.P. art. 930.4 and within the limitations period as set out in La.C.Cr,P. art. 930.8. Notably, the Legislature in 2013 La. Acts 251 amended that article to make the procedural 'bars against successive filings mandatory. Relator has filed an application for - post-conviction relief in the district court, and the district court’s ruling denying relief is now' final. Hereafter, unless relator can show that one of the narrow exceptions authorizing the filing of a successive application applies, relator has exhausted the right-to state collateral review. The district court is ordered to record a minute entry consistent with this per cu-riam.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Tyron HANDY
    No. 2017-K-1823
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    12/15/2017
   On Supervisory Writs to the Criminal District Court for the Parish of Orleans

PER CURIAM

| Writ granted.

This matter is remanded to the court of appeal for supplementation of the record with the full transcript of the voir dire proceedings, the per curiam of the district court and the juror strike sheets, and for briefing, argument and opinion on defendant’s assignments of error regarding voir dire in light of the newly' supplemented material.

GENOVESE, J., would deny.


text:
    STATE EX REL. Dennis Ray DAVIS, Jr. v. STATE of Louisiana
    No. 2017-KH-1814
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    12/15/2017
   ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF CADDO

PER CURIAM:

[ iWRIT NOT CONSIDERED. Petitioner has not demonstrated that he sought review in the court(s) below before filing in this Court nor shown the “extraordinary circumstances” that would justify bypassing that level of review. La.S.Ct.R. X § 5(b).


text:
    STATE EX REL. Jamal VARISTE v. STATE of Louisiana
    No. 2017-KH-1799
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    12/15/2017
   ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE NINETEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF EAST BATON ROUGE

PER CURIAM:

WRIT NOT CONSIDERED. Petitioner has not demonstrated that he sought review in the court(s) below before filing in this Court nor shown the “extraordinary circumstances” that would justify bypassing that level of review. La.S.Ct.R. X § 5(b).


text:
    STATE EX REL. Willie Lee SMITH v. STATE of Louisiana
    No. 2017-KH-1793
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    12/15/2017
   ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE SIXTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF EAST CARROLL

PER CURIAM:

JJWRIT NOT CONSIDERED. Untimely filed pursuant to La.S.Ct.R. X § 5.

Relator has now exhausted the right to obtain post-conviction relief in state court.' Similar to federal habeas relief, see 28 U.S.C. § 2244, Louisiana post-conviction procedure envisions the filing of a second or successive application only under the narrow circumstances provided in La. C.Cr.P. art. 930.4 and within the limitations period as set out in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8. Notably, the Legislature in 2013 La. Acts 251 amended that article to make the procedural bars against successive filings mandatory. Relator has filed an application for post-conviction relief in the district court, and the district court’s ruling denying relief is now final. Hereafter, unless relator can show that one of the narrow exceptions authorizing the filing of a successive application applies, relator has exhausted the right to state collateral review. The district court is ordered to record a minute entry consistent with this per cu-riam.


text:
    STATE EX REL. Andrea HALL v. STATE of Louisiana
    No. 2017-KH-1788
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    12/15/2017
   ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE SEVENTH, JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF CONCORDIA

PER CURIAM:

11 WRIT NOT CONSIDERED. Untimely filed pursuant to La.S.Ct.R. X § 5.

Relator has now exhausted the right to obtain post-conviction relief in state court. Similar to federal habeas relief, see 28 U.S.C. § 2244, Louisiana post-conviction procedure envisions the filing of a second or successive application only under the narrow circumstances provided in La. C.Cr.P. art. 980.4 and within the limitations period as set out in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8. Notably, the Legislature in 2013 La. Acts 251 amended that article to make the procedural bars against successive filings mandatory. Relator has filed an application for post-conviction relief to the district court, and the district court’s ruling denying relief is now final. Hereafter, unless relator can show that one of the narrow exceptions authorizing the filing of a successive application applies, relator has exhausted the right to state collateral review. The district court is ordered to record a minute entry consistent with this per cu-riam.


text:
    STATE EX REL. Michael JOHNSON v. STATE of Louisiana
    No. 2017-KH-1760
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    12/15/2017
   ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE TWENTY-FIRST JUDICIAL, DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF TAN-GIPAHOA

PER CURIAM:

JjWRIT NOT CONSIDERED. Untimely filed pursuant to La.S.Ct.R. X §. 5. Relator has now exhausted the right to obtain post-conviction relief in state court. Similar to federal habeas relief, see 28 U.S.C. § 2244, Louisiana post-conviction procedure envisions the filing of a second or successive application only under the narrow circumstances provided in La.C,Cr.P. art. 930.4 and within the limitations period as set out in La.C.Cr.P. art. 93Ó.8., Notably, the Legislature in 2013 La. Acts 251 amended that article to make.the procedural bars against successive filings mandatory. Relator has filed an application for post-conviction relief to the district court, 'and the district court’s ruling denying relief is now final. Hereafter, unless relator can show that one of the narrow exceptions authorizing the filing of a successive application applies, relator has exhausted the right to state collateral review. The district court is ordered to record a. minute entry consistent with this per curiam.


text:
    STATE EX REL. Willie WILLIAMS v. STATE of Louisiana
    No. 2017-KH-1721
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    12/15/2017
   ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE TWENTY-FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF JEFFERSON

PER CURIAM:

JjWRIT NOT CONSIDERED. Untimely filed pursuant to La.S.Ct.R. X § 5.

Relator has now exhausted the right to obtain post-conviction relief in state court. Similar to federal habeas relief, see 28 U.S.C. § 2244, Louisiana post-conviction procedure envisions' the filing‘of a second or successive application only under the narrow circumstances provided in La. C.Cr.P. art. 930.4 and within the limitations period as set out in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8. Notably, the Legislature in 2013 La. Acts .251 amended that article to make the procedural bars against successive filings mandatory. Relator has filed an application for post-conviction relief in the district court, and the district court’s ruling denying relief is now final. Hereafter, unless relator can show that one of the narrow exceptions authorizing the filing of a successive application applies, relator has exhausted the right to state collateral review. The district court is ordered to record a minute entry consistent with this per cu-riam.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Rodell ROBINSON
    No. 2016-KP-1566
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    12/15/2017
   ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE TWENTY-FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF JEFFERSON .

PER CURIAM:

| denied. Relator shows no error in the lower courts’ rulings.

Relator.has now fully litigated his application for - post-conviction relief in state court.. Similar to federal habeas relief, see 28 U.S.C. § 2244, Louisiana post-conviction procedure envisions the filing of a second or successive application only under the narrow circumstances provided in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4 and within the limitations period as set out in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8. Notably, the legislature in 2013 La. Acts 251 amended that article to make the procedural bars against successive filings mandatory. Relator’s claims have now been fully litigated in accord with La. C.Cr.P. art. 930.6, and this denial is final. Hereafter, unless he can show that one of the narrow exceptions authorizing the filing of a successive application applies, relator has exhausted his right to state collateral review. The district court is ordered to record a minute entry consistent with this per curiam.

HUGHES, J., would grant in part.

GUIDRY, J., recused.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Chazmon JAMES
    No. 2016-KP-1384
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    12/15/2017
   ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE TWENTY-SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF WASHINGTON

PER CURIAM:

|, Denied. Relator fails to show he received ineffective assistance of counsel under the standard of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). In addition, relator’s sentencing claim is not cognizable on collateral review. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.3; State ex rel. Melinie v. State, 93-1380 (La. 1/12/96), 665 So.2d 1172.

Relator has now fully litigated his application for post-conviction relief in state court. Similar to federal habeas relief, see 28 U.S.C. § 2244, Louisiana post-conviction procedure envisions the filing of a second or successive application only under the narrow circumstances provided in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4 and within the limitations period as set out in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8. Notably, the legislature in 2013 La. Acts 251 amended that article to make the procedural bars against successive filings mandatory. Relator’s claims have now been fully litigated in accord with La. C.Cr.P. art. 930.6, and this denial is final. Hereafter, unless he can show that one of the narrow exceptions authorizing the filing of a successive application applies, relator has exhausted his right to state collateral review. The district court is ordered to record a minute entry consistent with this per curiam.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Quoc-Khoi A. PHAM
    No. 2016-KP-1135
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    12/15/2017
   ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE TWENTY-FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF JEFFERSON

PER CURIAM:

| denied. Relator fails to show that he received ineffective assistance of counsel under the standard of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). As to the remaining claim, relator fails to satisfy his post-conviction burden of proof. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.2. We attach hereto and make a part hereof the district court’s written reasons denying relief.

Relator has now fully litigated his application for post-conviction relief in state court. Similar to federal habeas relief, see 28 U.S.C. § 2244, Louisiana post-conviction procedure envisions the filing of a second or successive application only under the narrow circumstances provided in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4 and within the limitations period as set out in La,C.Cr.P. art. 930.8. Notably, the legislature in 2013 La. Acts 251 amended that article to make the procedural bars against successive filings mandatory. Relator’s claims have now been fully litigated in accord with La. C.Cr.P. art. 930.6, and this denial is final. Hereafter, unless he can show that one of the narrow exceptions authorizing the filing of a successive application applies, relator has exhausted his right to state collateral review. The district court is ordered to record a minute entry consistent with this per curiam.

GUIDRY, J., recused.

I ¡Attachment


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Justin YOUNG
    No. 2016-KP-1003
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    12/15/2017
   ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF ORLEANS

PER CURIAM:

h Denied. Relator’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel during his habitual offender adjudication is not cognizable on collateral review. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.3; State ex rel. Melinie v. State, 93-1380 (La. 1/12/96), 665 So.2d 1172; see also State v. Thomas, 08-2912 (La. 10/16/09), 19 So.3d 466. As to his remaining claims, relator fails to show he received ineffective assistance of counsel under the standard of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).

Relator has now fully litigated his application for post-conviction relief in state court. Similar to federal habeas relief, see 28 U.S.C. § 2244, Louisiana post-conviction procedure envisions the filing of a second or successive application only under the narrow circumstances provided in La,C.Cr.P. art. 930.4 and within the limitations period as set out in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8. Notably, the Legislature in 2013 La. Acts 251 amended La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4 to make the procedural bars against successive filings mandatory. Relator’s claims have now been fully litigated in state collateral proceedings in accord with La. C.Cr.P, art. 930.6, and this denial is final. Hereafter, unless he can show that one of the narrow exceptions authorizing the filing of a successive application applies, relator has exhausted his right to state | ¡.collateral review. The district court is ordered to record a minute entry consistent with this per curiam.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Barry ABSHER
    No. 2016-KP-1002
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    12/15/2017
   ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE TWENTY-SECOND DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF ST. TAMMANY

PER CURIAM:

| ¡Denied. Relator fails to show he was denied the effective assistance of counsel during plea negotiations under the standard -of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).

‘ Relator has now fully litigated his application for post-conviction relief in state court. Similar to federal habeas relief, see 28 U.S.C. § 2244, Louisiana post-conviction procedure envisions the filing of a second or successive application only under the narrow circumstances provided in La.C,Cr.P. art. 930.4 and within the limitations period as set out in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8. Notably, the legislature in 2013 La. Acts 251 amended that article to make the procedural bars against successive filings mandatory. Relator’s claims have now been fully litigated in áccord with La. C.Cr.P. art. 930.6, and this denial is final. Hereafter, unless he can show that one of the narrow exceptions authorizing the filing of a successive application applies, relator has exhausted his right to state collateral review. The district court is ordered to record a minute entry consistent with this per curiam.


text:
    IN RE: COMMITTEE ON BAR ADMISSIONS CFN-852981
    NO. 2017-BA-0065
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    DECEMBER 14, 2017
    SCHIFF,- SHECKMAN & WHITE, Julie Brown White; For Applicant;
    LOUISIANA COMMITTEE ON BAR ADMISSIONS, Monique Drake; For Respondent.
   BAR ADMISSIONS PROCEEDING

PER CURIAM

| petitioner successfully passed the Louisiana Bar Examination. However, the Committee on Bar Admissions (“Committee”) advised petitioner that it was unable to certify him for admission to the bar on character and fitness grounds. Specifically, the Committee cited petitioner’s record of criminal offenses, as well as his failure to fully disclose his criminal history when he applied to law school;. '

Petitioner then applied to this court for admission to the practice of law. We remanded the matter-to the Committee on Bar Admissions Panel on Character and Fitness to conduct: an investigation and appointed a commissioner to take character and fitness-evidence. .

Following the proceedings, the commissioner filed his report with this court, recommending petitioner be admitted to the practice of law. The commissioner noted that petitioner’s criminal offenses were committed from 2005 to 2008, when he was a teenager. No similar occurrences appear in his history since that time. Further, regarding petitioner’s failure to disclose his criminal history on his law school application in response to a question seeking disclosure of offenses resolved through deferred adjudication, the commissioner found that petitioner’s explanation for the omission was credible, resulting from his lack of understanding of the law governing dismissal of his charges.

| ¡¡The Committee filed an objection to the commissioner’s recommendation, and oral argument was conducted before this court pursuant to Supreme Court Rule XVII, § 9(D)(11).

Considering the commissioner’s recommendation and the entire record of this proceeding, we conclude petitioner is eligible to be admitted to the practice of law in Louisiana.

ADMISSION GRANTED.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Charles BABINEAUX
    NO. 2016-OK-0694
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 22, 2017
   Applying for Rehearing of this Courts order dated April 24, 2017; Parish of Lafayette, 15th Judicial District Court Div. L, No. 130761; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KH 15-01121;

h Rehearing denied.

GENOVESE, J., would grant


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Reginald JONES
    NO. 2017-KK-1931
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    November 19, 2017
   Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. D, No. 530-889; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2017-K-0930;

LSTAY GRANTED. The order setting this case for trial on November 20, 2017, is hereby vacated. Trial of this matter may be re-fixed by the trial court no sooner than November 28, 2017, with reasonable notice to all counsel.

GUIDRY, J., would deny.

CLARK, J., would deny.

CRICHTON, J., would deny.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Joshua PAYNE
    NO. 2017-KK-1993
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    November 30, 2017
   Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. 3, No. 569-285; to the

Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2017-K-0958;

It Denied.

WEIMER, J., would grant.

GUIDRY, J., would grant.


text:
    Eliana Amparo SOTO v. Alireza SADEGHI
    NO. 2017-CJ-1987
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    November 30, 2017
   Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div, K, No. 2014-11550; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2017-C-0953;

j! Stay denied. Writ denied.


text:
    BOARD OF ETHICS IN the MATTER OF Jordan MONSOUR and Walter Monsour
    NO. 2017-C-1274
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    December 5, 2017
   Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review The Ethics Adjudicatory Board Division of'Administrative Law, No. 2015-14967-ETHICS A; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Nos. 2016 CW 1156, 2016 CW 1159

I, Granted.


text:
    SUCCESSION OF Charles George HARLAN
    NO. 2017-C-1132
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    December 5, 2017
   Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Pointe Coupee, 18th Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 46,840; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2016 CA 1345 AND 2016 CA 1346;

| granted.


text:
      M/V RESOURCES LLC v. LOUISIANA HARDWOOD PRODUCTS LLC, Louisiana Rural NMETC Forestlands LLC, and Rot O. Martin Lumber Company LLC
    NO. 2017-C-1748
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    December 5, 2017
   Applying For'Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Pointe Coupee, 18th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 46667-A; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2016 CA 0758;

|

denied.


text:
    MACWCP II LLC v. Charlotte Faye WILLIAMS
    NO. 2017-C-1750
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    December 5, 2017
   Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 614,201; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2017 CA 0004

| denied.


text:
    IN RE: Appeal of the DECISION OF the DISCIPLINARY BOARD NO. 2017-PDB-031
    NO. 2017-OB-1662
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    December 5, 2017
   Applying For Appeal of the Decision of the Disciplinary Board Louisiana Attorney Disciplinary Board, No. 17-PDB-031;

11 Leave to appeal denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Odeal Pippins LIRETTE
    NO. 2016-K-1272
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    December 5, 2017
   Applying for Reconsideration of this Court’s action dated September 29,2017; Parish of St. Landry, 27th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. I3-K-5183-B; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 16-72;

y CD 3 Ph g m c3 CD <D CQ *-0 CD ⅛ CD 3 ‘m S o o COOm osfcr ■ ⅞ o

HUGHES, J., would grant.


text:
    CITY OF NEW ORLEANS v. Lawrence CLARK
    NO. 2017-KK-1453
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    December 5, 2017
   Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, New Orleans Municipal Court, No. 1195106; Criminal District Court Div. B, No. 533-080; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2017-K-0563;

| t Granted.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Anthony WILLIAMS
    NO. 2016-KP-1375
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    December 5, 2017
   Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Pointe Coupee, 18th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 72291, 72378; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2016 KW 0578;

11 Denied.


text:
    JEFF MERCER, LLC v. STATE of Louisiana, THROUGH the DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND DEVELOPMENT, Willis Jenkins, John H. Eason, and Pam HigginBotham
    NO. 2017-C-1442
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    December 5, 2017
   Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Ouachita, 4th Judicial District Court Div. C, No. Q7-3151-3; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 51,371-CA;

| jDenied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Eric Dale MICKELSON
    NO. 2017-KO-0538
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    December 5, 2017
   Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Div. 1, No. 262256; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 50,-940-KA;

| tDenied.

CRICHTON, J., recused.


text:
    STATE EX REL. Andre RANDOLPH v. STATE of Louisiana
    NO. 2016-KH-1467
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    December 5, 2017
   Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. F, No. 96-7456; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 16-KH-28 6;

I ,Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Lon ADAMS
    NO. 2016-KP-1438
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    December 5, 2017
   Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 09-49; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 14-KH-830;

JjNot considered. See La.S.Ct.R. X, § 5(a); also, repetitive, see State v. Adams, 15-0301 (La. 6/19/15), 172 So.3d 650.


text:
    STATE EX REL. Excell LIVERS v. STATE of Louisiana
    NO. 2016-KH-1897
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    December 5, 2017
   Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 89-1042; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 16-KH-466;

I denied.


text:
    Christopher G. BRADFORD v. AVOYELLES PARISH SHERIFF DEPT., et al.
    NO. 2017-01405
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    December 5, 2017
   Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Avoyelles, 12th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 2016-3012; to the Court of Appeal, Tljiird Circuit, No. 16-831;

hNot considered. Not timely filed. See La.S.Ct. Rule X, § 5(a).


text:
    CITY OF ALEXANDRIA v. Kendall DIXON
    NO. 2017-CC-1756
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    December 5, 2017
   Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Rapides, 9th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 251,514; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CW 17-327;

11 Denied.

CLARK, J., would grant.


text:
    STATE EX REL. James THOMAS v. STATE of Louisiana
    NO. 2016-KH-1654
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    December 5, 2017
   Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. J, No. 308-887; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2016-K-0619;

| j Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. John CHAMBERS
    NO. 2017-KO-C665
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    December 5, 2017
   Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. I, No. 517-259; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2016-KA-0712;

11 Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Timothy Aaron DANGERFIELD
    NO. 2017-KO-0573
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    December 5, 2017
   Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Calcasieu, 14th Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 38408-11; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 16-379;

h Denied,


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Leo Paul THIBODEAUX, Jr.
    NO. 2017-K-0642
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    December 5, 2017
   Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Calcasieu, 14th Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 23723-13; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 16-542;

Denied.


text:
    Michael R. DESHOTELS v. John WHITE, in his Individual and Official Capacities, as Superintendent of the Louisiana Department of Education and the Louisiana Department of Education
    NO. 2017-C-1565
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    December 5, 2017
   Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 638,503; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2016 CA 0889;

Denied.

WEIMER, J., would grant.

HUGHES, J., would grant.

GENOVESE, J., would grant.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Ronald Dean BANDY, Jr.
    NO. 2017-KK-1764
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    December 5, 2017
   Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of. Tangipahoa, 21st Judicial District Court Div. F, No. 9Ó3019; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2017 KW1224;

| iDenied.


text:
    Autry Lee JONES v. Harry L. SHAHEEN, Jr.
    NO. 2017-OC-1706
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    December 5, 2017
   Applying For Writ of Mandamus and/or Writ of Prohibition, Parish of Calcasieu, 14th Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 2000-006116;

I iDenied.


text:
    CITY OF GRETNA v. Miguel Angel RETES
    NO. 2017-KK-1727
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    December 5, 2017
   Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 16-1450; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 17-K-416?

I iDenied.


text:
    Mary FISHER, et al. v. The TOWN OF BOYCE, et al.
    NO. 2017-CC-1705
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    December 5, 2017
   Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Rapides, 9th Judicial District Court Div. G, No. 255,497-G; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No, 17-470; '

| iDenied.


text:
    Louis FITZMORRIS, Assessor, Parish of St. Tammany v. NEW COVINGTON APARTMENTS, LP and Louisiana Tax Commission
    NO. 2017-C-1736
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    December 5, 2017
   Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. F, No. 2015-14995; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2016 CA 1253;

| ¶ Denied.

WEIMER, J., would grant and docket.


text:
    Doy E. COTHERN v. Kalyn BARBER; John Barber; Individually and as the Father and Administrator of the Estate of the Unemancipated Minor, Kalyn Barber; Bridgette Barber, Individually and as the Mother of the Unemancipated Minor, Kalyn Barber; GEICO Insurance Company; James Jordan; State Farm Fire and Casualty Company; and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company
    NO. 2017-C-1741
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    December 5, 2017
   Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Washington, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. H, No. 108304; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2016 CA 1288

^Denied.


text:
    Anjel LEE, Individually, and on Behalf of Her Minor Child, Landon Lee (Deceased) v. Dr. Michael QUINN, Dr., Kelechi N. Iheagwara, Dr. Rufus Hixon, III, Dr. Shannon Boudreaux, and Our Lady of the Lake Regional Medical Center
    NO. 2017-C-1729
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    December 5, 2017
   Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 637830; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2017 CA 0070;

| ] Denied.

JOHNSON, C.J., would grant.

HUGHES, J., would grant.


text:
    The MARIETTA TRUST and the Warren Trust v. JR. LOGGING INC., Fair Hills Farm LLC, Jerry Avants, Jr., Thomas Keaty, Jr., and XYZ Insurance Company
    NO. 2017-C-1751
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    December 5, 2017
   Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Tangipahoa, 21st Judicial District Court Div. F, No. 2013-0751; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2016 CA1136;

hDenied.

HUGHES, J., would grant.


text:
    CHAPEL HILL AGGREGATES, LLC f/k/a Chapel Hill Sand and Gravel, LLC v. STAINES FT EPPLING, APLC and Anthony J. Staines, individually
    NO. 2017-CC-1758
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    December 5, 2017
   Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. H, No. 709-195; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 17-C-412C/W 17-C-413 & 17-C-414;

hDenied.


text:
    Gustave J. LABARRE, Jr., et al. v. TEXAS BRINE COMPANY, LLC and Georgia Golf Chemical & Vinyls, LLC
    NO. 2017-CC-1761
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    December 5, 2017
   Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Assumption, 23rd Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 30,650; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2016 CW 0265;

hDenied.


text:
    CAMSOFT DATA. SYSTEMS, INC. v. SOUTHERN ELECTRONICS SUPPLY, INC. and Active Solutions, LLC
    NO. 2017-CC-1762
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    December 5, 2017
   Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 582,741; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2017CW 0732;

11Denied.

HUGHES, J., recused.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. KEE FOOD, INC. Kassim Nagi, Tawfiq Ali Almansoob, Mohamed Nagi, Southla, LLC
    NO. 2017-C-1780
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    December 5, 2017
   Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Terrebonne, 32nd Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 170,587; to the Court of Appeal, Fust Circuit, No. 2017 CA 0127;

|! Denied.

WEIMER, J., recused.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Larry Joseph MCKITHERN aka Larry J. McKithern aka Larry McKithern
    NO. 2016-KO-1107
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    December 5, 2017
   Applying for Reconsideration of this Court’s order dated May 26, 2017, Parish of Calcasieu, 14th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 25391-09; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 15-930

| j Reconsideration denied. See La.S.Ct. Rule IX, § 6.


text:
    Dean E. STIPP v. METLIFE AUTO AND HOME INSURANCE AGENCY, INC. and/or MetLife Auto and Home, Metropolitan Property and Casualty Insurance Company, Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, Benson Motor Company d/b/a Mercedes-Benz of New Orleans and ABC Insurance Company
    NO. 2017-C-1774
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    December 5, 2017
   Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Pariah of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. G, No. 679-953; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 17-CA-61;

I! Denied.

GENOVESE, J., would grant.


text:
    CHAPEL HILL AGGREGATES, LLC f/k/a Chapel Hill Sand and Gravel, LLC v. STAINES & EPPLING, APLC and Anthony J. Staines, Individually
    NO. 2017-CC-1765
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    December 5, 2017
   Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. H, No. 709-195; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 17-C-412C/W17-C-413 & 17-C-414;

I ¶ Denied.


text:
    CHAPEL HILL AGGREGATES, LLC f/k/a Chapel Hill Sand and Gravel, LLC v. STAINES & EPPLING, APLC and Anthony J. Staines, Individually
    NO. 2017-CC-1757
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana December 5, 2017
   Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. H, No. 709-Í95; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 17-C-412C/W 17-C-413 & 17-C-414;

h Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. George SHORT
    NO. 2017-KK-1887
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    December 5, 2017
   Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, .Criminal District Court Div. K, No. 527-600; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2017-K-0910

| denied.


text:
    David Dewayne STOWE, Sr., et al. v. Donald Slade JORDAN, et al.
    NO. 2017-CC-1776
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    December 5, 2017
   Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Richland, 5th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 44,771; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 51,-803-CW;

| denied.


text:
    Brent J. MENARD v. SPX COOLING TECHNOLOGIES, INC., f/k/a Marley Cooling Technologies, Inc., f/k/a the Marley Cooling Tower Company, et al.
    NO. 2017-CC-1973
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    December 5, 2017
   Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. 23, No. 649687; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2017 CW 1351

|, Stay denied; writ denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Henry JOLLA
    NO. 2017-KK-1994
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    December 13, 2017
   Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. 3, No. 569-235; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2017-K-0959;

| T Denied.


text:
    IN RE: Timmy James FONTENOT
    NO. 2017-B-1661
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    December 14, 2017
   Applying for Rehearing of this Court’s action dated November 28,2017, Louisiana Attorney Disciplinary Board, No. 15-DB-057;

h Rehearing denied.


text:
    Angela C. BAJOIE, a/k/a Angela Laws Bajoie v. JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.
    NO. 2017-C-1697
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    December 15, 2017
   Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. 0, No. 612486; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2017 CA 0046

I iDenied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Troy TAYLOR
    NO. 2017-KK-1820
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    December 15, 2017
   Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. I, No. 503-161; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2017-K-0640;

| ¶ Denied.


text:
    Roland LECOMPTE and Dinah Lecompte v. CONTINENTAL CASUALTY CO. and Michael Isabell, M.D.
    NO. 2017-C-1525
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    December 15, 2017
   Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Terrebonne, 32nd Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 166471; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2016 CA 1359

| iDenied.

WEIMER, J., would grant.

HUGHES, J., would grant.


text:
    Maria R. GANOZA v. Jambs M. LABORDE, M.D., et al.
    NO. 2017-CC-1822
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    December 15, 2017
   Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. I, No. 2015-10418; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2017-C-0761;

11 Denied.

HUGHES, J., would grant.


text:
    STATE EX REL. Joshua I. LEE v. STATE of Louisiana
    NO. 2017-KH-1805
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    December 15, 2017
   Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. K, No. 500-034; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2016-KA-0049

JjWRIT NOT CONSIDERED. Untimely filed pursuant to La.S.Ct.R. X § 5.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Kenyatta MEADS
    NO. 2017-KK-1591
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    December 15, 2017
   Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. I, No. 583279; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2017 KW 1029;

| denied.

HUGHES, J., would grant.


text:
    STATE EX REL. Mark MOUTON v. STATE of Louisiana
    NO. 2017-KH-1878
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    December 15, 2017
   Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Vermilion, 15th Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 56712; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KH 17-00536;

I /Writ not considered.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Randy Demond PARKER
    NO. 2017-K-0509
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    December 15, 2017
   Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. J, No. 05-12-1147; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2016 KA1016;

11 Denied.


text:
    SPANISH LAKE RESTORATION, LLC v. SHELL OIL COMPANY, Wichita River Oil Corporation, Liberti Oil & Gas Corporation, Liberti Resources, Inc., Whitton Company, Inc., International Petroleum and Exploration Operating Corporation, Patrick Petroleum Corporation, Texas International Petroleum Corporation, ExxonMobil Oil Corporation, H.L. Hawkins, Jr., Inc. and Goodrich Petroleum Company, LLC
    NO. 2017-CC-1838
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    December 15, 2017
   Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Iberville, 18th Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 69702; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No, 2017 CW 0814

1¶ Denied.

WEIMER, J., would grant and docket.


text:
    Lisa VIERING and Stephen Viering v. LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY and/or LM General Insurance Company, Aaron Michael Dick, Barry Dick, and Feather & Fin Ranch, Inc.
    NO. 2017-C-1821
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    December 15, 2017
   Applying For Writ of-Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. I, No. 2014-13231; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2017 CA 0204;

I! Denied,


text:
    Johnna BARRON, on Behalf of Her Husband, Michael Barron v. Kristal Himel HUTZLER, Goldstar Electric, Inc. and Progressive Security Insurance Company
    NO. 2017-C-1667
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    December 15, 2017
   Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish.of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. H, No. 734677; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 16-CA-485

h Granted.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Simon A. SHOKR
    NO. 2017-KO-0589
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    December 15, 2017
   Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. J, No. 13-80; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 16-KA-337

11 Denied.


text:
    SPANISH LAKE RESTORATION, LLC v. SHELL OIL COMPANY, Wichita River Oil Corporation, Liberty Oil & Gas Corporation, Liberty Resources, Inc., Whitton Company, Inc., International Petroleum and Exploration Operating Corporation, Patrick Petroleum Corporation, Texas International Petroleum Corporation, ExxonMobil Oil Corporation, H.L. Hawkins, Jr., Inc. and Goodrich Petroleum Company, LLC
    NO. 2017-CC-1833
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    December 15, 2017
   Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Iberville, 18th Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 69702; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2017 CW 0915;

| denied.

WEIMER, J., would grant and docket.

HUGHES, J., would grant and docket.


text:
    Wayne J. STABILER, Jr. and The Little Village CWA, LLC v. LOUISIANA BUSINESS, INC. (d/b/a “Greater Baton Rouge Business Report”, “businessreport.com”, “dailyreport.com”, “Daily Report AM”, and “Daily Report PM”); Stephanie Riegal, Robert L. Miller and Rolfe McCollister, Jr.
    NO. 2017-C-1824
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    December 15, 2017
   Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. I, No. 639,382; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2016 CA 1182;

| denied.

HUGHES, J., would grant and docket.


text:
    GLORIA’S RANCH, L.L.C. v. TAUREN EXPLORATION, INC., Cubic Energy, Inc., Wells Fargo Energy Capital, Inc., and EXCO USA Asset, Inc.
    NO. 2017-C-1519
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    December 15, 2017
   Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 541-768; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 51,-077-CA;

| t Granted.

CRICHTON, J., recused.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Anthony BARRE
    NO. 2017-KK-1832
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    December 15, 2017
   Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. H, No. 534-502; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2017-K-0698.

| ^Denied.


text:
    John Mack EVANS, Sr. v. HERITAGE MANOR STRATMORE NURSING & REHABILITATION CENTER, L.L.C., et al.
    NO. 2017-C-1826
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    December 15, 2017
   Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Div. A, No.'581,219-A; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 51,-651-CA

h Denied.


text:
    GLORIA’S RANCH, L.L.C. v. TAUREN EXPLORATION, INC., Cubic Energy, Inc., Wells Fargo Energy Capital, Inc., and EXCO USA Asset, Inc.
    NO. 2017-C-1522
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    December 15, 2017
   Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 541-768; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 51, 077-CA;

hGranted.

CRICHTON, J., recused.


text:
    STATE EX REL. Mark MILLER v. STATE of Louisiana
    NO. 2017-KH-1795
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    December 15, 2017
   Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of St. James, 23rd Judicial District Court Div. A; No. 10-F-006011; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 17-KH-71;

JjWRIT NOT CONSIDERED. Untimely filed pursuant to La.S.Ct.R. X § 5.


text:
    Grenda L. SMITH v. GRAPHIC PACKAGING, INC.
    NO. 2017-C-1806
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    December 15, 2017
   Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review Louisiana Office of Workers’ Compensation, No. 16-03151; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 51,590-WCA;

hDenied.


text:
    Kathleen VARRECCHIO v. HARRAH’S LICENSE COMPANY and/or Harrah’s Operating Company and/or Harrah’s Entertainment, also d/b/a “Harrah’s Casino,” #8 Canal Street, New Orleans, Louisiana, Any Unidentified Employee(s), and the XXX Insurance Company(s)
    NO. 2017-CC-1690
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    December 15, 2017
   Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish .of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. N, No. 06-4533; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2017-C-0591

|, Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Dontrell ALVIS
    NO. 2016-KP-1315
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    December 15, 2017
   Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Terrebonne, 32nd Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 600942; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2016 KW 0302;

hNot considered. Not timely filed. See La.S.Cr, Rule X, § 5(a).

WEIMER, J., recused.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Ernest BLACKMON
    NO. 2017-KK-1778
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    December 15, 2017
   Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. G, No. 530-039; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2017-K-0579;

liNot considered. Not timely filed. See La.S.Cr. Rule X, § 5(a).


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Joenell RUBIN
    NO. 2017-K-0406
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    December 15, 2017
   Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of St. Landry, 27th Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 12-K-1661-C; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 16-456

1 t Denied.


text:
    CITY OF BATON ROUGE and Parish of East Baton v. Peter A. TERRITO, Jr.
    ROUGE NO. 2017-C-1592
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    December 15, 2017
   Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. F, No. 595,443; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2016 CA 0925;

| iDenied.

HUGHES, J., woulcj grant.

GENOVESE, J., would grant.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Terrance SPENCER
    NO. 2017-K-0491
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana December 15, 2017
   Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Lafourche, 17th Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 511,339; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2016 KA 1121;

h Denied.

WEIMER, J., recused.


text:
    GLORIA’S RANCH, L.L.C. v. TAUREN EXPLORATION, INC., Cubic Energy, Inc., Wells Fargo Energy Capital, Inc., and EXCO USA Asset, Inc.
    NO. 2017-C-1518
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    December 15, 2017
   Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 541-768: to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 51,-077-CA

11 Granted.

CRICHTON, J„ recused.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Leroy JACKSON
    NO. 2016-KP-1100
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    December 15, 2017
   Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Criminal. District Court Div. D, No. 492-704;1 to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No, 2015-K-1358;

h Granted.


text:
    Roger BURCHFIELD and Carol Burchfield v. Forrest H. WRIGHT, M.D., Thomas Renda, M.D., and Willis Knighton Medical Center
    NO. 2017-C-1488
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    December 15, 2017
   Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 585,046-C; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 51,-459-CA;

h Granted.


text:
    In the MATTER OF the Minority of Brian L. CALLEY
    NO. 2017-C-1781
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    December 15, 2017
   Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Pariah of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 51,797; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2017 CA 0068;

| denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana IN the INTEREST OF J.T., A.T., C.F., A.B., and L.D.
    NO. 2017-CJ-1891
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    December 15, 2017
   Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Evangeline, 13th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. J-7876; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 17-390;

11 Denied.


text:
    Milton C. TATES Brigida Tates, Individually and as Husband and Wife v. INTERGRATED PRODUCTION SERVICES, INC., Superior Energy Services, Shelby Holland, & Liberty Insurance Company
    NO. 2017-C-1825
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    December 15, 2017
   Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 589478; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 51,-574-CA.

11 Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Anthony BARRE
    NO. 2017-KK-1632
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    December 15, 2017
   Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. H, No. 534-502; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2017-K-0611.

| t Denied.

GUIDRY, J., would grant.

CLARK, J., would grant.

HUGHES, J., would grant in part.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Brian SMITH
    NO. 2017-KK-2067
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    December 15, 2017
   Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. John, 40th Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 12,313; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 17-K-603;

| denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Calvin MORRIS
    NO. 2017-KK-2097
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    December 19, 2017
   Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. B, No. 537-573; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2017-K-0973;

hDenied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Douglas MOODY
    NO. 2017-KK-1874
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    December 20, 2017
   Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 15-5934 AND 16-5140; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 17-K-497;

hDenied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Johntrell WASHINGTON
    NO. 2017-KK-2103
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    January 9, 2018
   Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. J, No. 533-255; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2017-K-0904;

11 Stay denied. Writ denied.


text:
    STATE EX REL. Mohammed COLLINS v. STATE of Louisiana
    NO. 2016-KH-1759
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    January 9, 2018
   Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. -M, No. 06-11-0189; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2016 KW 0931

|, Denied. See State v. Trosclair, 443 So.2d 1098 (La. 1983).


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. David MARX
    NO. 2017-OK-0704
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    January 9, 2018
   Applying For Supervisory and/or 'Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. C, No. 609203; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2017-K-0264;

| denied.


text:
    STATE EX REL. Edward COUSIN, Jr. v. STATE of Louisiana
    NO. 2016-KH-1665
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    January 9, 2018
   Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. H, No. 561,643; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2016 KW 0780

| denied,


text:
    Everette DRAUGHN v. Eugene “Tat-2” “the Bounty Hunter” THACKER, et al.
    NO. 2017-CC-1841
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    January 9, 2018
   Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. G, No. 718-982; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 17-C-337;

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


text:
    STATE EX REL. Jackie WASHINGTON v. STATE of Louisiana
    NO. 2016-KH-1718
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    January 9, 2018
   Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs

h Denied.


text:
    STATE EX REL. Travis BROWN v. STATE of Louisiana
    NO. 2016-KH-1536
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    January 9, 2018
   Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 496-700; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2016 KW 0710;

| denied. Relator has previously exhausted his right to state collateral review. See State ex rel. Brown v. State, 15-2155 (La. 3/31/17), 214 So.3d 845.


text:
    Robert HARRISON, Jr. v. LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONS
    NO. 2016-CI-1319
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    January 9, 2018
   Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Pariah of Iberville, 18th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 73,197; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2015 CA 1724

11 Denied.


text:
    STATE EX REL. David Earl JOHNSON v. STATE of Louisiana
    NO. 2016-KH-1724
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    January 9, 2018
   Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Div. 4, No. 219,715; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 51,-183-KH;

11 Denied. Relator has previously exhausted his right to state collateral review. See State ex rel. Johnson v. State, 14-1405 (La. 4/4/16), 187 So.3d 996.


text:
    Shawn P. DOYLE and Thyme B. Doyle, individually, and on behalf of their minor children, Brady Doyle, Shawn Michael Doyle, and Maggie Grace Doyle v. LONESOME DEVELOPMENT, LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, Nautilus Insurance Company, Natchez Trace Property Owners Association, Inc., Western World Insurance Company and Renaissance Property Management, a Division of Renaissance Realty Services, LLC
    NO. 2017-CC-1848
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    January 9, 2018
   Applying Eor Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. G, No. 2015-10976; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2017 CW 0748;

I, Denied.


text:
    Christy ROBINETTE v. OLD REPUBLIC INSURANCE COMPANY, et al.
    NO. 2017-C-1871
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    January 9, 2018
   Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Lafayette, 15th Judicial District Court Div. G, No. 2014-0883; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CA 17-79

|, Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Jermaine Dajuan DENNIS
    NO. 2017-KK-1842
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    January 9, 2018
   Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Bossier, 26th Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 219,538; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 51,-900-KW;

_JjDenied.


text:
    Janice CLABORNE, et al. v. The HOUSING AUTHORITY OF NEW ORLEANS
    NO. 2017-CC-1860
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    January 9, 2018
   Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. D, No. 2001-20605; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2017-C-0662;

Denied.


text:
    Christopher ROSS v. STATE of Louisiana
    NO. 2017-KK-1726
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    January 9, 2018
   Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. I, No. 16-6833; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 17-K-491;

1 ^Denied.


text:
    Robert SCHIFT v. Lawrence G. PUGH, III, Frederick T. Haas, III, Alexander L. Burns, and Pugh, Accardo, Haas, Radecker & Carey, LLC
    NO. 2017-CC-1873
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    January 9, 2018
   Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. E, No. 2014-3864; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2017-C-0529

| denied.


text:
    Morgan Taylor Dronet MORENO v. Daniel Armando MORENO
    NO. 2017-CC-1872
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    January 9, 2018
   Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 570402; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 51,-938-CW;

11 Denied.


text:
    David COX v. BAKER DISTRIBUTING COMPANY, L.L.C.
    NO. 2017-C-1834
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    January 9, 2018
   Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 569,280; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 51,-587-CA

hDenied.


text:
    Ricky E. WHITE and Kristi L. Fowler v. Michelle Renee STOKES
    NO. 2017-CC-1859
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    January 9, 2018
   Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Franklin, 5th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 44792; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 51,-940-CW

| denied.

HUGHES, J., would grant.


text:
    Brandon GREER v. XL SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY
    NO. 2017-C-1837
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    January 9, 2018
   Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Ascension, 23rd Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 112-011; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2017 CA 0229;

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

HUGHES, J., would consider the merits.


text:
    SANCTUARY CAPITAL, LLC, et al., ON BEHALF OF NORTH LOUISIANA BIDCO, LLC v. Richard D. CLOUD, Jambs Randolph Garner, and North Louisiana Bidco, LLC
    NO. 2017-CC-1858
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    January 9, 2018
   Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Ouachita, 4th Judicial District Court Div. K, No. 14-J.379; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 51,-800-CW;

|, Denied.


text:
    Theodule P. NOEL, Jr., et al. v. Theodule Pierre NOEL, Sr., et al.
    NO. 2017-C-1839
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    January 9, 2018
   Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Vermilion, 15th Judicial District Court Div. I, No. 2013-96657; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 16-734;

1 iDenied.


text:
    Theodule P. NOEL, Jr., et al. v. Theodule P. NOEL, Sr., et al.
    NO. 2017-C-1817
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    January 9, 2018
   Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Vermilion, 15th Judicial District Court Div. I, No. 2013-96657; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 16-734;

| iDenied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Roy MORGAN
    NO. 2017-KK-1855
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    January 9, 2018
   Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. G, No. 10-81-0785; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2017 KW 0975;

I denied.


text:
    Alberta HITE v. James FARMER, UV Logistics, L.L.C. d/b/a/ United Vision Logistics, GEICO Casualty Insurance Company Kayci R. Francois, as Provisional Tutrix of Paytin Simon v. Judith Savoie Farmer, Appointed Succession Representative and/or Executrix of the Succession of James Farmer, American Financial Group, Inc. d/b/a/ Great American Insurance Company, UV Logistics, L.L.C. d/b/a/ United Vision Logistics, GEICO Casualty Insurance Company
    NO. 2017-CC-1847
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    January 9, 2018
   Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Terrebonne, 32nd Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 176,986 C/W 176,982; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2017 CW 0826;

|! Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Gregory DE GRUY
    NO. 2017-K-0752
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    January 9, 2018
   Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. K, No. 525-665; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2016-KA-0891

|, Denied.


text:
    STATE EX REL. Derrick JONES v. STATE of Louisiana
    NO. 2016-KH-1581
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    January 9, 2018
   Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs," Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. J, No. 334-122; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2016-K-0700; .

| denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Jeffrey P. GRANIER
    NO. 2017-KK-1835
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    January 9, 2018
   Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. G, No. 520-629; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2017-K-0355 C/W 2017-KA-0447

| iDenied.


text:
    Everett CUROLE, Jr., et al. v. Rory DELCAMBRE, et al.
    NO. 2017-C-1506
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    January 9, 2018
   Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Vermilion, 15th Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 79580; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 16-550

| tDenied.


text:
    Everett CUROLE, Jr., et al. v. ROSRY DELCAMBRE, et al.
    NO. 2017-C-1491
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    January 9, 2018
   Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Vermilion, 15th Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 79580; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 16-550;

1 ^Denied.


text:
    STATE EX REL. Travis BROWN v. STATE of Louisiana
    NO. 2016-KH-1504
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    January 9, 2018
   Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 496700; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2016 KW 0710;

|Denied.


text:
    SANCTUARY CAPITAL, LLC, et al., ON BEHALF OF NORTH LOUISIANA BIDCO, LLC v. Richard D. CLOUD, James Randolph Garner, and North Louisiana Bidco, LLC
    NO. 2017-CC-1857
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    January 9, 2018
   Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Ouachita, 4th Judicial District Court Div. K, No. 14-1379; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 51,-801-CW;

Denied.


text:
    SANCTUARY CAPITAL, LLC, et al., ON BEHALF OF NORTH LOUISIANA BIDCO, LLC v. Richard D. CLOUD, James Randolph Garner, and North Louisiana Bidco, LLC
    NO. 2017-CC-1845
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    January 9, 2018
   Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Ouachita, 4th Judicial District Court Div. K, No. 14-1379; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, -No. 51,-799-CW

LDenied.


text:
    WINMILL TIRE, LLC, et al. v. COLT, INC., et al.
    NO. 2017-CC-1843
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    January 9, 2018
   Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Landry, 27th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 16-C-4386; to the Coui’t of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CW 17-00662

| denied.


text:
    Theodule P. NOEL, Jr., et al. v. Theodule Pierre NOEL, Sr., et al.
    NO. 2017-C-1S30
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    January 9, 2018
   Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Vermilion, 15th Judicial District Court Div. I, No. 2013-96657; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 16-734;

1 'Denied.


text:
    WINMILL TIRE, LLC, et al. v. COLT, INC., et al.
    NO. 2017-CC-1844
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    January 9, 2018
   Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Landry, 27th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 16-C-4386; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CW 17-00659

| denied.


text:
    John KENNEDY v. Christopher DAVIS, et al.
    NO. 2017-C-1869
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    January 9, 2018
   Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Rapides, 9th Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 252,108; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 17-218

| denied.


author: CRAIN, J.

text:
    Roderick SIMS v. MAISON INSURANCE COMPANY
    NO. 2016 CA 1661
    Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.
    SEPTEMBER 15, 2017

      Kathleen M. Wilson, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, Attorney for Plaintiff/Appellant, Roderick Sims
    Matthew J. Ungarino, David I. Borde-lon, Metairie, Louisiana, Attorneys for Defendant/Appellee, Maison Insurance Company
    BEFORE: GUIDRY, PETTIGREW, AND CRAIN, JJ.
   CRAIN, J.

|2The plaintiff appeals a summary judgment dismissing his claim against an insurer based upon a finding of a material misrepresentation in the policy application. We reverse and remand.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

After his home was damaged by a fire, Roderick Sims made a claim under a homeowners’ policy issued by Maison Insurance Company. Maison denied the claim, asserting the policy was voided by a material misrepresentation in the policy application. According to Maison, Sims misrepresented that no business is conducted on the premises when, in fact, he uses the home to conduct a business that acquires, restores, and sells automobiles.

Sims- filed suit, and Maison responded with a motion for summary judgment seeking a dismissal of the claims based on the misrepresentation, citing a policy provision voiding coverage if the insured makes a material misrepresentation in the application with the intent to deceive. In support of the motion, Maison offered the policy application, which is.attached to a facsimile cover sheet; a certified copy of the insurance policy; excerpts of a sworn statement from Sims; and an affidavit by a representative of the insurer, who attested Maison would not have issued the policy if it had known of the business operations on the premises.

The policy application is a seven-page document. According to the attached cover sheet, the application was generated by an agent with MidSouth Insurance Agency, who faxed the document to Sims and requested he “sign and initial where requested and fax [the application] back to me as soon as possible.” The fourth | ¡¡page of the application contains a list of 27 questions, all of which are answered with either a “Yes” or “No.” The first question asks, “Is there any business conducted oh the premises?” The indicated answer is' “No.” The application does not identify who provided the answer to that question or any of the remaining questions. The answers are type-printed rather than hand-written, and no initials or signatures appear'anywhere on the page. The final two pages of the application contain signatures by Sims, one of which appears below a declaration that the applicant read the application and the information therein is “true, complete and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.”

In the excerpts from Sims’ sworn statement taken after the fire loss, he acknowledged operating a business called “Roderick Classic Car Sales, LLC” out of his home for two years leading up to the fire. According to Sims, “I buy — go to the auctions and ... buy cars and resell them. I fix classic cars up. So basically buy, resell, and restore/restoration.” Notably, the selected excerpts from the sworn statement contain no questions or statements about the completion of the insurance application, and, more particularly, who provided the answerp to any of the questions on the fourth page. Sims was only asked how he got the insurance, to which he replied, “I Googled it off my phone and found them. So I gave them a call, and they gave me a quote.”

After taking the matter under advisement, the trial court ruled in favor of Maison, stating in written reasons that Sims made a misrepresentation in the application that materially affected the risk assumed by Maison, and, if the insurer had known of the operation of the businesses at the home, it would not have issued the policy. A judgment was signed granting Maison’s motion and dismissing Sims’ claims with prejudice. Sims appeals.

DISCUSSION

|4A motion for summary judgment shall be granted if the motion, memorandum, and supporting documents show there is no genuine issue as to material fact and the mover is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. La. Code Civ. Pro. art. 966A(3). If the mover will bear the burden of proof at trial on the issqe before the court in the motion, the burden of showing there is no genuine issue of material fact remains with the mover. See Ra. Code Civ. Pro. art. 966D(1); Rider v. Ambeau, 11-0532 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2/1/12), 100 So.3d 849, 854. If the mover has made a prima facie showing the motion should be granted, the burden shifts to the non-moving party to present evidence demonstrating that a material factual issue remains. Jones v. Estate of Santiago, 03-1424 (La. 4/14/04), 870 So.2d 1002, 1006. However, if a prima facie case has not been made, the opponent has nothing to prove in response to the motion. See Hat’s Equipment, Inc. v. WHM, L.L.C., 11-1982 (La. App. 1 Cir. 5/4/12), 92 So.3d 1072, 1076.

Factual inferences reasonably drawn from the evidence must be construed in favor of the party opposing a motion for summary judgment, and all doubt must be resolved in the opponent’s favor. Willis v. Medders, 00-2507 (La. 12/8/00), 775 So.2d 1049, 1050. In determining whether summary judgment is appropriate, appellate courts review evidence de novo under the same criteria that govern the trial court’s determination of whether summary judgment is appropriate. In re Succession of Beard, 13-1717 (La. App. 1 Cir. 6/6/14), 147 So.3d 753, 759-60.

Maison relies on a policy provision that denies coverage to an insured who, in the procurement of the policy, “misrepresented any material fact” or “[ijntentionally made false statements of fact which, if known to [Maison], would have caused [Maison] not to issue the policy.” The conduct must be “committed with the intent to deceive.”

|BThe policy language follows Louisiana statutory provisions governing an insurer’s ability to deny coverage based upon a misrepresentation in the policy application. See La. R.S. 22:860 and 1311F(2). Under these provisions, consistent with the terms of Maison’s policy, the insurer can avoid coverage if it proves (1) the insured made a misrepresentation in the policy application, (2) the misrepresentation was material, meaning the insurer would not have issued the policy if the misrepresentation had not been made, and (3) the insured made the misrepresentation with the intent to deceive. See La. R.S. 22:860 and 1311F(2); Darby v. Safeco Insurance Company of America, 545 So.2d 1022, 1026 (La. 1989); Breaux v. Bene, 95-1004 (La. App. 1 Cir. 12/15/95), 664 So.2d 1377, 1380.

A finding of intent to deceive is essential to defeating coverage. See Cousin v. Page, 372 So.2d 1231, 1233 (La. 1979). Because of the inherent difficulties in proving intent, strict proof of fraud is not required to show the applicant’s intent to deceive. Intent to deceive must be determined from surrounding circumstances indicating the insured’s knowledge of the falsity of the representations made in the application, and his recognition of the materiality of his misrepresentations, or from circumstances that create a reasonable assumption that the insured recognized the materiality. Cousin, 372 So.2d at 1233.

The evidence submitted by Maison establishes the policy application contains a misrepresentation that is material: it-incorrectly states ■ no business |fioperations were conducted on the premises, and, if Maison had known of that misrepresentation, it would not have issued the policy. However, that does not complete Maison’s burden of proof. The insurer must also establish an intent to deceive. See Cousin, 372 So.2d at 1233. For that requirement, we must determine whether Maison made a prima facie case that no genuine issue of material fact exists relative to whether (1) Sims actually made the misrepresentation, and (2) if he did, that he understood its materiality. See Cousin, 372 So.2d at 1233.

We begin by pointing out what evidence is not in the record. Maison offered no affidavits or deposition testimony about the completion of the application from either Sims or the agent, the two people presumably involved in the procurement of the policy. Sims gave a sworn statement, but the selected excerpts introduced by Maison do not address the completion of the application. Sims stated only that he discovered Maison through ah internet search, contacted the insurer, and received a quote. The excerpts do not include any exchanges about the policy application. Maison introduced no affidavit or deposition testimony from the agent, either about the application process in general or the specific completion of the application for Sims’ policy. On the key issue of intent to deceive, the record contains only the application and the cover sheet used by the agent to fax the application to Sims.

The application does not' identify whether the agent or Sims answered the questions on the fourth page of the document. No declarations, signatures, or initials appear on the page. The cover sheet for the fax transmittal indicates the agent faxed the completed application to Sims with instructions to “sign and initial where requested” and “fax back” the document “as soon as possible.” Sims apparently complied with the agent’s instructions by signing and initialing the application in several places. . This limited evidence, without any pertinent -|7testimony from Sims or the agent, sheds no light on who actually provided the incorrect answer to the- question at issue.

We, note that Sims’ signature does appear on the final page under a declaration stating the applicant reviewed the application and the- information contained therein is correct. Generally, one who signs, a document is presumed to have done so with knowledge of. its contents, regardless of whether he actually read it. See Coleman v. Jim Walter Homes, Inc., 08-1221 (La. 3/17/09), 6 So.3d 179, 183. However, in the.case of insurance'contracts, if the insurer’s agent undertakes to fill out and complete the policy application, the agent’s acts, representations, and mistakes, if any, are considered to.be those of the insurance company, Americas Insurance Company v. Chatman, 13-0954, 2013 WL 6858314 at *3 (La. App. 1 Cir. 12/27/13), writ denied, 14-0332 (La. 6/20/14), 141 So.3d 808. If the agent by reason of mistake, fraud, omission or negligence inserts erroneous or untrue answers to the questions contained in. the application, such representations bind the insurer but not the insured, provided the insured is. justifiably ignorant thereof, has no actual or implied knowledge thereof, and has been guilty of no bad faith or fraud. Id.

Thus, despite the declaration above Sims’ signature, for purposes of proving an intent to deceive, the threshold questions remain the same: who put the incorrect information in the application, Sims or the agent, and, if the latter, was Sims aware of the error? Those questions are not answered by the evidence before the court.

Even if Sims could be held accountable for the misrepresentation, the evidence also fails to establish he knew the information was material to the issuance of the policy. Maison presented nothing allowing for even an inference as to why the subject question was answered incorrectly, whether, intentionally or by oversight, or if Sims knew or should have known of the signifi.cance, for purposes | «of his insurance coverage, of operating a business out of his home. Without any explanation from the parties involved in the application process, the answers to these questions are left to speculation.

The decisive issues in this casé turn on knowledge and intent. Summary judgment is rarely appropriate for disposition of a case requiring judicial determination of subjective facts such as intent, motive, malice, good faith, or knowledge. Jarrell v. Travis, 04-0117 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2/11/05), 906 So.2d 551, 553. The limited evidence submitted by Maison leaves material facts unresolved and is not sufficient to place this case among the rare exceptions warranting summary judgment on such issues.The trial court thus erred in granting summary judgment and dismissing Sims’ claims. See Royal Maccabees Life Insurance Company v. Montgomery, 97-1434 (La. App. 1 Cir. 6/29/98), 716 So.2d 921, 926, writ denied, 98-2664 (La. 12/11/98), 730 So.2d 940 (summary judgment reversed based on. factual issues relating to whether applicant- made a false statement in the policy application that materially affected the insured risk and whether any misrepresentation was done with an intent to deceive); Breaux v. Bene, 95-1004 (La. App. 1 Cir. 12/15/95), 664 So.2d 1377, 1382 (determination of whether applicant had intent to deceive in policy application required a credibility determination that was not appropriate for summary judgment); Kahl v. Chevalier, 15-1028 (La. App. 3 Cir. 3/23/16), 188 So.3d 449, 456 (genuine issues of material' fact precluded summary judgment in favor of insurer claiming material misrepresentation in policy application); Estate of Dauzat v. Eagle American Insurance Company, 06-333 (La. App. 3 Cir. 10/11/06), 941 So.2d 166, 170 (evidence that agent, instead of applicant, completed policy application presented issue of material fact on intent to deceive that precluded summary judgment).

^CONCLUSION

The summary judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded for further-proceedings. All costs of appeal are assessed to Maison Insurance Company.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

      . Other exhibits include various information printed off the internet, including the Secretary of State’s website, identifying business entities ostensibly associated with Sims, some of which identify the business’s domicile as the home address. Although these exhibits are not proper evidence for purposes of a motion for summary judgment, the documents were submitted without objection, See La. Code Civ. Pro. arts. 966A(4) and D(2), These additional exhibits are not relevant to the issues we find determinative on appeal.

      . Fire insurance policies are also subject to Louisiana Revised Statute 22:1314, which allows an insurer to void coverage for the breach of a representation or warranty if the breach exists at the time of the loss and increases the moral or physical hazard under the policy. See Americas Insurance Company v. Chatman, 13-0954, 2013WL6858314 at *2 (La. App. 1 Cir. 12/27/13), writ denied, 14-0332 (La. 6/20/14), 141 So.3d 808. Maison's motion for summary judgment is specific to the policy provision identified herein and does not invoke the grounds for cancellation under Section 22:1314.-See La. Codé Civ. Pro. art. 966F; Wilson v. Two SD, LLC, 15-0477 (La. App. 1 Cir. 12/23/15), 186 So.3d 159, 162, writ denied, 16-0306 (La. 4/8/16), 191 So.3d 588.


author: CRAIN, J. GUIDRY, J.,

text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Thomas Arnold KENDALL
    2016KA0207
    Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.
    Judgment Rendered: SEPTEMBER 15, 2017

      Warren L. Montgomery, DA, Matthew Caplan, ADA, Covington, Louisiana, Attorneys for the State of Louisiana
    Gwendolyn K. Brown, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, Attorney for the Defendant/Appellant, Thomas Arnold Kendall
    Thomas Arnold Kendall, Angola, Louisiana, In Proper Person
    BEFORE: GUIDRY, PETTIGREW, AND CRAIN, JJ.
   CRAIN, J.

|gThe defendant, Thomas A. Kendall, pled guilty as charged to two counts of pornography involving juveniles and, after admitting to the allegations of a habitual offender bill of information, was adjudicated a second-felony habitual offender as to both counts. See La. R.S. 14:81.1. The trial court sentenced the defendant to fourteen years imprisonment at hard labor without the benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence on each count, to be served concurrently. We affirm the convictions, habitual offender adjudications, and sentences, and grant defense counsel’s motion to withdraw.

FACTS

The bill of information charged the defendant with committing two counts of pornography involving juveniles by possessing pornography involving juveniles on or between December 16, 2014, and January 16, 2015. When the defendant pled guilty, the parties stipulated to a factual basis for each count.

DISCUSSION

The brief filed by defense counsel contains no assignments of error and was filed in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 1400, 18 L.Ed. 2d 493 (1967), and State v. Jyles, 96-2669 (La. 12/12/97), 704 So.2d 241 (per curiam). In Anders, the United States Supreme Court instructed that if counsel finds the defendant’s case to be wholly frivolous, after a conscientious examination, he should so advise the court and request permission to withdraw. Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S.Ct. at 1400. That request must, however, be accompanied by a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal. A copy of counsel’s brief should be furnished to the indigent, who should be allowed time to raise any points he chooses; the court, not counsel, then decides whether the case is wholly frivolous based upon a full examination of all the proceedings. Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S.Ct. at 1400.

|a/TO Jyles, the Louisiana Supreme Court approved the procedures outlined in State v. Benjamin, 573 So.2d 528 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1990), to comply with Anders. Appellate counsel must not only review the procedural history of the case and the evidence presented at trial, but his brief must also contain “a detailed and renewable assessment for both the defendant and the appellate court of whether the appeal is worth pursuing in the first place.” Jyles, 704 So.2d at 242 (quoting State v. Mouton, 95-0981 (La. 4/28/95), 653 So.2d 1176, 1177). When conducting a review for compliance with Anders, an appellate court must conduct an' independent review of the record to determine whether the appeal is wholly frivolous. State v. Thomas, 12-0177 (La. App. 1 Cir. 12/28/12), 112 So.3d 875, 878 (en banc).

Here, defense counsel complied with the requirements necessary to file an Anders brief. He reviewed the procedural history and facts of the case and concluded there are no non-frivolous issues for appeal. He recognized the defendant is precluded from challenging his sentence on appeal and that no pre-trial rulings were preserved for appeal under State v. Crosby, 338 So.2d 584, 588 (La. 1976). Additionally, defense counsel certified the defendant was served with a copy of both the Anders brief and the motion to withdraw as attorney of record. Thé motion to withdraw confirms the defendant was informed of his right to file a pro se brief, which he filed, raising three assignments of error: (1) the state failed to give fair notice of which count was being enhanced under the habitual offender bill of information; (2) the defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel during plea bargaining; and (3) the sentences are unconstitutionally excessive. . ■

After reviewing the appellate record, including the pleadings, minute entries, bills of information, and transcripts, we find it supports defense counsel’s assertion that there are no non-frivolous issues to raise on appeal. Under both state and federal jurisprudence, an unqualified plea of guilty waives all non-jurisdictional defects and 14precludes their review by either appeal or post-conviction relifef. Crosby, 338 So.2d at 588; State v. Ricks, 13-612 (La. App. 5 Cir. 12/30/13), 131 So.3d 1117, 1122 (recognizing such a waiver in the context of habitual offender adjudications). Further, a defendant cannot appeal a sentence imposed in conformity with a plea agreement set forth in the record at the time' of the plea. La. Code Crim. Pro. art. 881.2A(2); State v. Wiggins, 13-0649 (La. App. 1 Cir. 1/31/14), 139 So.3d 1, 4; see also State v. Young, 96-0195 (La. 10/15/96), 680 So.2d 1171, 1175. A defendant who stipulates to the terms of a habitual offender bill of information in exchange for a sentencing agreement is also precluded from appealing the habitual offender sentence. State v. Jones, 15-0757, 2015 WL 6951576, p.5 (La. App. 1 Cir. 11/9/15).

The defendant admitted his guilt and pled guilty to two counts of pornography involving juveniles, then stipulated to the allegations of the habitual offender bill of information. In accepting the defendant’s plea, the trial court noted the defendant’s willingness to plead guilty was the result of discussions between the court, the state, and defense counsel and informed him that the substance of the plea agreement would be put on the record when the sentence was imposed. The trial court added that if the sentences were not in accordance with the defendant’s understanding of the plea agreement, he would be-allowed to withdraw - the guilty plea. During the same hearing, the trial court sentenced the defendant as a second felony offender on each count of pornography involving juveniles to imprisonment for fourteen years at hard labor, without benefit of parole, probation, or,suspension of sentence, and ordered the sentences to run concurrently and the defendant to register as a sex offender. Immediately after imposing the sentence, the court asked the defendant twice if the sentences complied with his plea agreement, and the defendant said they did.

The record reflects the defendant entered an unqualified guilty plea and was sentenced in conformity with a plea agreement set forth on the record at the time of I (¡the plea, Consequently, the defendant waived his complaint related to the form of the habitual offender bill of information and -is precluded from appealing his sentences.

The remaining issue raised by the defendant in his pro se brief, that he received ineffective assistance of counsel during plea bargaining, is a matter for post-conviction relief and, for purposes of our. analysis of this record, is also considered frivolous. See State v. West, 09-2810 (La. 12/10/10), 50 So.3d 148, 149 (a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is not a non-jurisdictional defect that is waived as a result of entry of a -guilty plea, and the issue is reviewable as part of an-application ■ for post-conviction relief); State v. Tingle, 12-1928, 2013 WL 2484316, p.7 (La. App. 1 Cir. 6/7/13) (a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel during plea bargaining may challenge counsel’s decisions relating to investigation, preparation, and-strategy, which cannot, be reviewed on appeal); see also State v. Johnson, 16-1471, 2017 WL 700484, p.1 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2/21/17) (an evidentiary hearing was required to adduce evidence regarding a post-conviction relief complaint of ineffective assistance of counsel during plea bargaining). We also find no reversible errors under Louisiana-Code of Criminal Procedure article 920(2).

Finding no non-frivolous issues that arguably support this appeal, the defendant’s convictions, habitual offender adjudications, and sentences are affirmed. Defense counsel’s motion to withdraw, held in abeyance pending this disposition, is granted.

CONVICTIONS, HABITUAL OFFENDER ADJUDICATIONS, AND SENTENCES AFFIRMED; MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED.

GUIDRY, J., dissents and assigns reasons,

GUIDRY, J.,

dissenting.

hi dissent from the majority’s opinion in this matter, because I believe that under a strict and narrow construction of La. C,Cr.P. art. 881.2(A)(2), the defendant’s right to appeal or seek review of his sentences imposed in conformity with his plea agreement is not barred. See State v. Faul, 03-1423, p. 3 (La. App. 1st Cir. 2/23/04), 873 So.2d 690, 691. The express language of La. C.Cr.P. art. 881.2(A)(2) states that “[t]he defendant cannot appeal or seek review of a -sentence imposed in conformity with a plea agreement which was set forth in the record at the time of the plea.” (Emphasis added.) Unquestionably, the terms of the defendant’s plea agreement were set forth in the same hearing in which the defendant entered his plea, but technically, the terms of the plea agreement were not set forth contemporaneously or at the time the defendant entered his plea.

By refusing to consider the defendant’s assignments of error questioning his-'sentences, the majority apparently finds that it was sufficient that the terms of the plea agreement were set forth during the same hearing in which the plea was given. While such a finding may seem reasonable, I do not believe it conforms with a strict and narrow construction of La. C.Cr.P. art. 881.2(A)(2). Further, I do not believe the trial court’s assurance that it would allow the defendant to withdraw his bplea during sentencing — if the terms of the plea agreement later recited were not in conformity with the defendant’s understanding — negates the requirements of La. C.Cr.P. art. • 881.2(A)(2) as I strictly and narrowly construe the statute. Thus, I believe the majority improperly ignored the defendant’s assignments of error challenging his sentences on appeal and therefore respectfully dissent.