source: Caselaw Access Project

author: CRICHTON, J.,

license: Public Domain

text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Ivan DIXON
    No. 2017-KK-0556
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    05/19/2017
   Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. K, No. 15-5818; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 16-KH-670

1(Writ denied.

HUGHES, J., would grant.

CRICHTON, J., additionally concurs and assigns reasons.

CRICHTON, J.,

additionally concurs assigns reasons:

hi agree with the Court’s decision to deny the writ application regarding this close issue and write separately to highlight the deference appellate courts give to a trial judge’s finding of contempt under La. C.C.P. art. 21. In this case, defense counsel used a wig during his closing argument to demonstrate the impossibility of the victim being dragged by her hair. The trial judge found defense counsel in contempt of court. In her written reasons, the trial judge observed that “[n]o attempt was made to use the wig demonstratively, other than to look ridiculous” and that defense counsel was “clearly mimicking, mocking and belittling the alleged victim.” See December 5, 2016 Per Curiam, State v. Dixon, (No. 16-K-670) (attached hereto). While zealous and passionate advocacy is commendable, especially in closing argu-. ment of a criminal jury case, it must be within the bounds of appropriate decorum established by law and the Rules of Professional Conduct. Because the trial judge observed this behavior, in my view, she was in the best position to determine whether defense counsel crossed that line, see generally La. C.Cr.P. art. 21(A), and engaged in contemptuous behavior.

| ¡.Attachment


author: PER CURIAM:

text:
    STATE EX REL. Sugar Ray LEWIS v. STATE of Louisiana
    No. 2017-KH-0252
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    05/19/2017
   PER CURIAM:

hDenied. Relator has previously exhausted his right to state collateral review. See State ex rel. Lewis v. State, 16-0128 (La. 5/19/17), 219 So.3d 1094, 2017 WL 2209969.

| ^Attachment


author: PER CURIAM: CLARK, J., CRICHTON, J.,

text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Rudy FRANCIS
    No. 2016-KP-0513
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    05/19/2017
   PER CURIAM:

1|Writ granted in part. In 2003, relator was indicted for the second degree murder of Larry Lawrence. In 2010, an Orleans Parish jury found relator guilty of manslaughter. Before this verdict, relator was tried twice for the crime and each trial ended in a mistrial. The district court sentenced him to 25 years imprisonment at hard labor without observing the 24-hour sentencing delay required by La.C.Cr.P. art. 893. The court of appeal affirmed the conviction and sentence. State v. Francis, 11-1082 (La. App. 4 Cir. 11/7/12), 2012 WL 6619022 (unpub’d), writ denied, 12-2575 (La. 5/3/13), 113 So.3d 209. As an error patent, the court of appeal noted that the district court failed to observe the 24-hour sentencing delay but found that the error was harmless because relator did not challenge the sentence on appeal. One member of the panel dissented from that determination:

The evidence at trial strongly suggests that a delay in sentencing would have allowed Mr. Francis the time necessary to furnish even more mitigating evidence to the sentencing judge. And the hastily imposed twenty-five year sentence does not seem to reflect a well-considered judgment about the characteristics of both the offender and the offense.

Francis, 11-1082, p. 10 (Bonin, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).

|20n May 1, 2014, relator filed an application for post-conviction relief in the district court in which he claimed he received ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel and that he is actually innocent of the crime, which the district court summarily denied. Under the circumstances presented here, the district court erred to the extent it rejected relator’s claims of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel without conducting an evidentiary hearing.

On appeal, counsel assigned three errors. Notably absent from them was a claim that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction when viewed under the due process standard of Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 2789, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). Although relator does not have the right to designate the issues counsel must raise on appeal, Jones v. Barnes, 463 U.S. 745, 751-53, 103 S.Ct. 3308, 3312-13, 77 L.Ed.2d 987 (1983), relator is entitled to relief if he shows both that counsel erred by “ignor[ing] issues ... clearly stronger than those presented,” Smith v. Robins, 528 U.S. 259, 288, 120 S.Ct. 746, 765, 145 L.Ed.2d 756 (2000) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted), and there was a “reasonable probability” that he would have prevailed on the claim on appeal, Mayo v. Henderson, 13 F.3d 528, 533-34 (2d Cir. 1994). Given the facts that relator claimed at trial that he acted in self-defense (and that the victim was the aggressor), two preceding trials ended in a mistrial, and the jury returned a lesser responsive verdict after the third trial, that omission under those circumstances presents a reasonable likelihood that counsel erred by ignoring an issue clearly stronger than those presented and that relator would have prevailed on the claim on appeal. Therefore, the district court erred in not affording relator an opportunity to prove that claim at an evidentiary hearing. See generally La.C.Cr.P. art. 930(A) (“An evidentiary hearing for the taking of testimony or other evidence shall be ordered whenever there are questions of fact which cannot be properly resolved ^pursuant to Articles 928 and 929.”). In addition, counsel did not claim on appeal that the sentence is unconstitutionally excessive. Considering the facts that the 25-year sentence is substantial, the claim was preserved for review by filing a motion to reconsider sentence, and the district court failed to observe the sentencing delay — and in light of the dissenting view on appeal — this claim also merits further evidentiary development. Although La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.3 “provides no basis for review of claims of excessiveness or other sentencing error post-conviction,” State ex rel Melinie v. State, 93-1380 (La. 1/12/96), 665 So.2d 1172, relator’s complaint that counsel erred by failing to challenge the sentence on appeal is cognizable post-conviction and, in fact, must be addressed on collateral review if it is to be addressed at all. Therefore, we grant relator’s application, in part to remand to the district court to conduct an evidentiary hearing on relator’s claims that appellate counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to challenge the evidence as insufficient and the sentence as excessive. The application is otherwise denied. GRANTED IN PART AND REMANDED

Clark, J., dissents in part.

Crichton, J., additionally concurs and assigns reasons.

Genovese, J., would deny the writ.

CLARK, J.,

Dissents in part.

hi dissent in part and would deny relator’s writ application.

CRICHTON, J.,

additionally concurs and assigns reasons:

hi agree with this Court’s grant in part and remand order for the trial court to conduct an evidentiary hearing on relator’s claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. On direct review, the appellate court affirmed relator’s conviction for manslaughter and sentence of twenty-five years imprisonment at hard labor. State v. Francis, 2011-1082 (La. App. 4 Cir. 11/7/12), 2012 WL 6619022 (unpub’d). To that court, appellate counsel had raised two assignments of error regarding character evidence and authenticity of evidence. Now, on collateral review, part of relator’s complaint is that appellate counsel was ineffective by failing to present claims of insufficient evidence and excessive sentence. I write separately to spotlight compelling reasons an evidentiary hearing is necessary to determine whether the appellate court “would have granted .relief had the issue[s] been raised.” State v. Cambrice, 2015-2362, p. 6 (La. 10/17/16), 202 So.3d 482, 487.

Relator Rudy Francis underwent two jury trials which resulted in hung juries and mistrials; it was only upon the third jury trial that he was found guilty of a responsive verdict. Under these circumstances, I find it stunning that appellate 12counsel did not raise a claim of insufficient evidence. In fact, the evidence as summarized by the court of appeal, in my view, presents a worthy question of whether relator acted in self-defense.

I also believe an evidentiary hearing is necessary here to evaluate whether appellate counsel should have raised the claim of excessive sentence. In his dissent in part from the court of appeal ruling, Judge Bonin noted that “the trial judge sentenced [relator] without affording him the statutorily mandated delay from the time of conviction until sentencing, and [relator] did not waive the delay.” Francis, 2011-1082 at p. 10 (Bonin, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). Yet the majority found the failure of the trial judge to observe the delay mandated by Lá. C.Cr.P. art. 873 harmless because relator did not complain of his sentence on appeal. Id. at p. 6. Whether the appellate court would have granted relator relief on that issue is open for debate but perhaps, under the circumstances of this case, it should have been asserted.

Given the particular facts and circumstances delineated in the court of appeal opinion, I believe appellate counsel may have missed the proverbial forest for a couple of trees.

      . The appellate counsel's assignment of errors were: (1) The Trial court erred when it permitted the prosecution to question the defendant and witness regarding a prior arrest for which the defendant was never convicted; (2) The Trial court erred when it allowed the prosecution to elicit testimony of motive concerning an alleged promissory note written in favor of the victim by the defendant without requiring the prosecution to produce the actual promissory note. Francis, 2011-1082 at pp. 7, 10.

      . See also Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), which provides that a conviction must be reversed if the petitioner proves (1) that counsel's performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness under, prevailing, professional norms, and (2) counsel’s inadequate performance prejudiced defendant to the extent that the trial was rendered unfair and the verdict suspect.


author: PER CURIAM: JOHNSON, C.J.,

text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Wyman Levelle HENRY
    NO. 2017-KK-0516
    Supíneme Court of Louisiana.
    05/26/2017
   PER CURIAM:

|, Writ granted. The ruling of the court of appeal is reversed, and the district court’s ruling denying defendant’s motion to quash the bill of information is reinstated. Defendant was charged with his third-offense possession of marijuana after he was arrested and found to be in possession of synthetic marijuana on June 25, 2015. That date is before the effective date of the 2015 La. Act 295, which substantially reduced the penalties for possession of small quantities of marijuana. Defendant moved to quash the bill of information on the grounds that the state charged him under the prior law and he was entitled to be charged instead under the amended law. The district court denied the motion. The court of appeal granted defendant’s writ application and quashed the bill of information, citing State v. Mayeux, 01-3195 (La 6/21/02), 820 So.2d 526. The court of appeal erred. In Mayeux, this court acknowledged that the rule that “the law in effect at the time of the commission of the offense is determinative of the penalty which the convicted accused must suffer.” Mayeux, 01-3195, p. 6, 820 So.2d at 530. The court in Mayeux carved out an exception, however, when there are ameliorative changes to the penalty provision in conjunction with the language in the statute indicating that it is to be applied “upon conviction.” See Mayeux, 01-3195, pp. 7-8, 820 So.2d at 531. In the present case, 2015 La. Act 295 did not | ¿reduce the penalty for the possession of synthetic marijuana. Therefore, Mayeux does not apply. The matter is remanded to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this order.

JOHNSON, C.J.,

dissents and assigns reasons.

hi respectfully dissent, finding the court of appeal correctly quashed the bill of information.

Defendant was arrested on June 25, 2015, for allegedly possessing a mere 1.5 grams of synthetic marijuana. Defendant was charged with possession of marijuana — third offense under prior law, La. R.S. 40:966(E)(3). On June 29, 2015, only four days after the alleged offense, Act 295, containing legislative amendments to parts of the Uniform Controlled Dangerous Substances Law, became effective. These changes, among other things, dramatically reduced penalties for marijuana possession, Defendant should be sentenced under the amended law.

I find the reasoning applied by this court in State v. Mayeux, 01-3195 (La. 6/21/02), 820 So.2d 526, is equally applicable in this case. In Mayeux, defendant was arrested and charged with a violation of La. R.S. 14:98(E), DWI fourth offense. Subsequent to defendant’s arrest, the legislature passed Act 1163, which amended the statute’s sentencing provisions, radically changing the way in which the offender serves the sentence imposed by the court. This court held that the trial court erred in sentencing the defendant under the penalty provisions of La. R.S. 14:98(G) as it existed at the time of the defendant’s DWI offense, rather than at the |atime of his conviction. In so doing, this court reasoned that although Louisiana courts have generally held that the law in effect at the date of the offense should control, the statutory language and legislative purpose behind the statutory amendment of La. R.S.14:98(G) dictated that the amendment be applied to those defendants having committed an offense prior to the effective date of the amendment. This court explained “the statute plainly states that ‘upon conviction,’ and not ‘upon committing the offense,’ the defendant shall be sentenced to a specific term. Thus, the specific language in LSA-R.S. 14:98 provides the time at which the penalty provisions are applicable.” 820 So.2d at 529. Additionally, this court recognized the amendment was passed “in an effort to address the societal costs of drunken driving and a high per capita prison population.” Id. at 527.

Similarly, the language in the amendment to La. R.S. 40:966 provides that the penalty provisions shall apply “on conviction.” Further, in my view, the changes in Act 295 represent a significant shift in policy relative to marijuana possession in this state and demonstrates that the legislature has chosen to impose more lenient sentencing provisions. Thus, the result in Mayeux is warranted here. “It would be illogical to conclude that the legislature intended that drunk drivers convicted under La. R.S. 14:98(G) must be sentenced under the post-amendment provisions, even though the underlying offense occurs prior to the amendment, based on the stated legislative purpose, but conclude that the legislature did not intend the same result for those offenders found guilty of minor drug offenses.” See State v. Sugasti, 01-3407 (La. 6/21/02), 820 So.2d 518, 522 (J, dissenting). A defendant in possession of an inconsequential amount of marijuana clearly intended for recreational use undoubtedly poses a far less risk to society than a repeat DWI offender. Further, subjecting this defendant to a lengthy term of imprisonment provides little societal value and only serves to further burden our financially strapped state and its tax payers.

| .^Considering rapidly changing social mores and increasing legalization of recreational and medical use of marijuana, this defendant is entitled to the ameliorative effects of the reduced sentencing provisions contained in Act 295. Thus, I would deny the state’s writ application.


text:
    STATE EX REL. Ardis WILLIAMS v. STATE of Louisiana
    No. 16-KH-0771
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    05/26/2017
   PER CURIAM:

| denied. Relator does not identify an illegal term in his sentence, and therefore, his filing is properly construed as an application for post-conviction relief. See State v. Parker, 98-0256 (La. 5/8/98), 711 So.2d 694. As such, it is subject to the time limitation set forth in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8. Relator’s application was not timely filed in the district court, and he fails to carry his burden to show that an exception applies. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8; State ex rel. Glover v. State, 93-2330 (La. 9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189. 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; see also State v. Cotton, 09-2397 (La. 10/15/10), 45 So.3d 1030.

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 12against 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 EX REL. Eugene JOSEPH v. STATE of Louisiana
    No. 16-KH-0431
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    05/26/2017
   PER CURIAM:

1 denied. Relator does not identify an illegal term in his sentence, and therefore, his filing is properly construed as an appli-' cation for post-conviction relief. See State v. Parker, 98-0256 (La. 5/8/98), 711 So.2d 694. As such, it is subject to the time limitation set forth in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8. Relator’s application was not timely filed in the district court, and he fails to carry his bui’den to show that an exception applies. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8; State ex rel. Glover v. State, 93-2330 (La. 9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189. In addition, relator’s 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; State v. Cotton, 09-2397 (La. 10/15/10), 45 So.3d 1030.

Relator has now fully litigated five applications 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 12successive 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 EX REL. Johnnie R. MARK v. STATE of Louisiana
    No. 2016-KH-0405
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    05/26/2017
   PER CURIAM:

| denied. Relator’s claim of prosecutorial misconduct is unsupported. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.2. In addition, 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 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.


author: Hughes, J.,

text:
    SUCCESSION OF Arthel J. SCHEUERMANN and Mark Gonzalez v. SCHEUERMANN & JONES, LLC. and Lawrence Blake Jones
    No. 2017-CC-572
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    05/26/2017.
   Hughes, J.,

additionally concurring.

h Plaintiff is entitled as a succession representative to the documents he seeks pri- or to the death of Ms. .Scheuermann, After her -death, his rights are as an assignee. Defendants indicate in their opposition that they have complied accordingly.


author: PER CURIAM JOHNSON, C.J. Hughes, J.,

text:
    IN RE: Toby James AUCOIN
    NO. 2017-B-0451
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    05/26/2017
   PER CURIAM

11 This disciplinary matter arises from formal charges filed by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (“ODC”) against respondent, Toby James Aucoin, an attorney licensed to practice law in Louisiana, but currently ineligible to practice,

FORMAL CHARGES

On July 22, 2014, April Lewis hired respondent to handle the expungement of her criminal record. At that time, Ms. Lewis paid respondent an $800 flat fee. Thereafter, ’Ms. Lewis made several attempts to contact respondent, to no avail. In September 2014, Ms. Lewis contacted the district attorney’s office to inquire about the status of the expungement and learned no action had been takén.

Ms. Lewis then obtained a, copy of the court’s docket to determine the next time respondent was scheduled to appear. She went to court on that date and confronted respondent about the status of her ex-pungement. Later, respondent met with Ms. Lewis for several hours at his office, during which time he told Ms, Lewis he would complete the expungement paperwork and forward it to her within one week. Respondent failed to forward the paperwork to Ms. Lewis as promised, and she made numerous attempts to contact him, to no avail.

lain December 2014, Ms. Lewis filed a disciplinary complaint against respondent. In his response to the complaint, respondent admitted that he failed to communicate with Ms. Lewis. He also included copies of expungement documents he had prepared on Ms. Lewis’ behalf. However, there is no evidence that he took any other action or completed the matter for Ms. Lewis or that he refunded her fee.

DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS

In December 2015, the ODC filed formal charges against respondent, alleging that his conduct, as set forth above, violated the following provisions of the Rules of Professional Conduct: Rules 1.3 (failure to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client), 1.4 (failure to communicate with a client), 1.5 (fee arrangements), 1.16(d) (obligations upon termination of the representation), and 8.4(a) (violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct). Respondent failed to answer the formal charges. Accordingly, the factual allegations contained therein were deemed admitted and proven by clear and convincing evidence pursuant to Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 11(E)(3). No formal hearing was held, but the parties were given an opportunity to file with the hearing committee written arguments and documentary evidence on the issue of sanctions. Respondent filed nothing for the hearing committee’s consideration.

Hearing Committee Report

After considering the ODC’s deemed admitted submission, the hearing committee determined that the factual allegations of the formal charges were deemed admitted and proven by clear and convincing evidence. Based on those facts, the committee determined respondent violated the Rules of Professional Conduct as alleged in the formal charges. Specifically, the committee found that|s respondent failed to properly communicate with his client, failed to represent her with diligence and promptness and abandoned her and her efforts to have her criminal record expunged, in violation of Rules 1.3, 1.4, and 8.4(a) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Respondent also collected $800 from Ms. Lewis without taking action, completing the matter, or returning the fee, in violation of Rules 1.5 and 8.4(a). Respondent then terminated that representation without taking steps to the extent reasonably practicable to protect Ms, Lewis’ interests; he did not give Ms. Lewis reasonable notice to allow her time for employment of other counsel; nor did he surrender papers and property to which Ms. Lewis was entitled or refund the advanced payment of fees or expenses that were not earned or incurred, all in violation of Rules 1.16(d) and 8.4(a).

Turning to the issue of an appropriate sanction, the committee stated:

The undisputed facts and exhibits confirm that Respondent violated the most basic duty to handle [Ms. Lewis’] matter diligently and to communicate with [her]. Respondent has demeaned the profession and engaged in conduct prejudicial to the fair administration of justice. ABA Standards and prior jurisprudence support a sanction of suspension from the practice of law for no less than one year and one day.

Accordingly, the committee recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for one year and one day; The committee further recommended that respondent be ordered to make restitution in the amount of $800, plus legal interest from July 22, 2014 until paid, either to Ms. Lewis or to the Client Assistance Fund, as appropriate. Finally, the committee recommended that respondent participate in ethics training.

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

| ¿Disciplinary Board Recommendation

After review, the disciplinary board determined that the factual allegations in the formal charges were deemed admitted and proven. The board also determined that the hearing committee’s additional findings are supported by the record. Based on these findings, the board concluded that the committee correctly applied the Rules of Professional Conduct.

The board then determined that respondent knowingly violated duties owed to his client, causing actual harm. After considering the ABA’s Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, the board determined that the baseline sanction is suspension.

In aggravation, the board found the following factors: bad faith obstruction of the disciplinary proceedings by intentionally failing to comply with rules or orders of the disciplinary agency, substantial experience in the practice of law (admitted 2004), and indifference to making restitution. The only mitigating factor found by the board was the absence of a prior disciplinary record.

After further considering this court’s prior jurisprudence addressing similar misconduct, a majority of the board recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for one year and one day. The board also recommended that respondent be ordered to pay restitution, plus legal interest, to Ms. Lewis or pay restitution to the Client Assistance Fund. Two board members dissented.

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

DISCUSSION

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

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

The evidence in the record of this deemed admitted matter supports a finding that respondent neglected a legal matter, failed to communicate with a client, and failed to refund an unearned fee. Based on these' facts, respondent has violated the Rules of Professional Conduct as charged by the ODC.

Having found evidence of professional misconduct, we now turn to a determination of the appropriate sanction for respondent’s actions. In determining a sanction, we are mindful that disciplinary proceedings are designed to maintain high standards of conduct, protect the public, preserve the integrity of the profession, and deter future misconduct. Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Reis, 513 So.2d 1173 (La. 1987). The discipline to be imposed depends upon the facts of each case and the seriousness of the offenses involved considered in light of any aggravating and mitigating circumstances. Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Whittington, 459 So.2d 520 (La. 1984).

Respondent knowingly violated duties owed to his client, causing actual harm. We agree with the disciplinary board that the baseline sanction for this type |ñof misconduct is suspension. The record supports the aggravating and mitigating factors found by the board.

In cases of misconduct involving one count of neglect, failure to communicate, and failure to cooperate with the ODC, we have typically imposed a one year and one day suspension. See, e.g., In re: Taylor, 14-0646 (La. 5/23/14), 139 So.3d 1004; In re: Kurzweg, 03-2902 (La. 4/2/04), 870 So.2d 978; In re: Turnage, 01-1240 (La. 6/22/01), 790 So.2d 620; In re: Bergeron, 00-1386 (La. 9/15/00), 768 So.2d 595. Based on these cases, we agree that the one year and one day suspension recommended by the board is appropriate.

Accordingly, we will adopt the board’s recommendation and suspend respondent from the practice of law for one year and one day. We will further order respondent to make restitution, plus legal interest, to his client or repay the Client Assistance Fund, as appropriate.

DECREE

Upon review of the findings and recommendations of the hearing committee and disciplinary board, and considering the record, it is ordered that Toby James Au-coin, Louisiana Bar Roll number 29072, be and he hereby is suspended from the practice of law for one year and one day. It is further ordered that respondent shall make restitution of $800, plus legal interest, to April Lewis or repay the Client Assistance Fund, as appropriate. 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.

JOHNSON, C.J.

dissents in part and assigns reasons.

|!While I agree with the majority that respondent violated the Rules of Professional Conduct, I find the sanction imposed, suspending respondent from the practice of law for one year and one day, too harsh based on the facts of this case.

Although respondent admittedly failed to perform the work he was hired to do, there is no evidence respondent’s conduct caused serious or irreparable injury or delay to his client. See, e.g., In re Taylor, 14-0646 (La. 5/23/14), 139 So.3d 1004, 1005 (respondent failed to file an application for post-conviction relief; suspended from the practice of law for one year and one day); In re Kurzweg, 03-2902 (La. 4/2/04), 870 So.2d 978, 979 (client’s suit dismissed as abandoned due to respondent’s failure to take any steps in the prosecution of the case; respondent suspended from the practice of law for a period of one year and one day). Clearly this case, wherein respondent failed to file expungement paperwork, does not rise to the same level of harm as cases wherein litigants lost their legal rights as a result of their cases being prescribed or abandoned.

I fully agree with ordering respondent to make restitution to his client, and I would support ordering respondent to attend additional Ethics training and CLE on office management. However, for the above reasons, I would fully defer the period of suspension imposed.

Hughes, J.,

concurring.

| TAlthough I would impose a lesser sanction, I concur in the court’s action because respondent failed to answer the formal charges.

      . Respondent has been ineligible to practice law since June 3, 2016 for failing to comply with mandatory continuing legal education requirements. He is also ineligible to practice law for failing to pay bar dues and the disciplinary assessment and failing to file his trust account disclosure statement.


text:
    STATE EX REL. Wilford ROBERTS, Jr. v. STATE of Louisiana
    No. 2016-KH-0737
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    05/26/2017
   PER CURIAM:

I denied. Relator’s self-defense claim is repetitive. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4(A); see State v. Roberts, 10-1091 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2/16/11), 57 So.3d 617, writ denied, 11-0511 (La. 9/30/11), 71 So.3d 280. In addition, 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 fright to state collateral review. The district court is ordered to record a minute entry consistent with this per curiam.


text:
    STATE EX REL. John HOLLAND v. STATE of Louisiana
    No. 2016-KH-0129
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    05/26/2017
   PER CURIAM:

| ] Denied. The application was not timely filed in the district court, and relator fails to carry his burden to show that an exception applies. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8; State ex rel. Glover v. State, 93-2330 (La. 9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189.

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 EX REL. Anthony J. SCOTTS v. STATE of Louisiana
    No. 2016-KH-0127
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    05/26/2017
   PER CURIAM:

| denied. Relator does not identify an illegal term in his sentence, and therefore, his filing is properly construed as an application for post-conviction relief. See State v. Parker, 98-0256 (La. 5/8/98), 711 So.2d 694. As such, it is subject to the time limitation set forth in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8. Relator’s application was not timely filed in the district court, and he fails to carry his burden to show that an exception applies. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8; State ex rel. Glover v. State, 93-2330 (La. 9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189. Moreover, 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; see also State v. Cotton, 09-2397 (La. 10/15/10), 45 So.3d 1030.

Relator has now fully litigated two applications 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 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 EX REL. Reginald LOMBARD v. STATE of Louisiana
    No. 2015-KH-2120
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    05/26/2017
   PER CURIAM:

| iDenied. Relator’s application is properly considered an application for post-conviction relief because he seeks to set aside his conviction and sentence. La.C.Cr.P. art. 924. Relator does not demonstrate that his guilty plea is invalid. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.2. We attach hereto and make a part hereof the district court’s written reasons denying relator’s application.

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 á 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.

Attachment


text:
    STATE EX REL. Johnny Ray COLLINS v. STATE of Louisiana
    No. 2016-KH-0475
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    05/26/2017
   PER CURIAM:

|! Denied. The application was not timely filed in the district court, and relator fails to carry his burden to show that an exception applies. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8; State ex rel. Glover v. State, 93-2330 (La. 9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189.

Relator has now fully litigated at least two applications 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 EX REL. Demetrius BRADLEY v. STATE of Louisiana
    No. 2016-KH-0446
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    05/26/2017
   PER CURIAM:

11 Denied. The application was not timely filed in the district court, and relator fails to carry his burden to show that an exception applies. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8; State ex rel. Glover v. State, 93-2330 (La. 9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189. We attach hereto and make a part hereof the district court’s written reasons for judgment.

Relator has now fully litigated at least one 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 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 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.

1 ¡.Attachment


text:
    STATE EX REL. Austin SLAUGHTER v. STATE of Louisiana
    No. 2016-KH-0372
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    05/26/2017
   PER CURIAM:

| denied. Relator’s guilty plea waived all non-jurisdictional defects in the proceedings leading to his conviction. State v. Crosby, 338 So.2d 584 (La. 1976). Relator also fails to show that 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). We attach hereto and make a part hereof the district court’s written reasons denying relator’s application.

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.

Attachment


text:
    IN RE: Richard C. TEISSIER
    NO. 2017-OB-0014
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    05/26/2017
   ORDER

It Considering the Petition for Transfer to Disability Inactive Status filed by respondent, Richard C. Teissier, and the report and recommendation of the hearing committee,

IT IS ORDERED that respondent’s claim of inability to defend be and it hereby is denied as invalid. See Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 22(C)(3).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Richard C. Teissier, Louisiana Bar Roll number 18461, be and he hereby is reinstated to active status from interim disability inactive status, subject to the order of interim suspension entered in In re: Teissier, 15-1435 (La. 7/28/15), 170 So.3d 960. This order shall be effective immediately.

FOR THE COURT:

/s/BERNETTE J, JOHNSON JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA

WEIMER, J.,

dissenting.

U would deny reinstatement to active status from interim disability inactive status.


author: WEIMER, J.,

text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Kenneth P. LANDRIEU
    No. 2017-KK-0950
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    06/09/2017
   11 Writ granted. La. C.Cr.P. art. 780(B) provides “the defendant shall exercise his right to waive trial by jury... not later than forty-five days prior to the date the case is set for trial.” In State v. Bazile, 2012-2243 (La. 5/7/13), 144 So.3d 719, 735, this court recognized a defendant’s right to trial by jury and the waiver of that right are not unbridled, as it declared the mandatory forty-five day filing delay set forth in La. C.Cr.P. 780 to be constitutional since it does not deprive a defendant of “a constitutionally-protected right and serve[s] a legitimate state interest.” Id., p. 12-13, 2012-2243, 144 So.3d at 730. We recognized that for a variety of reasons trial delays may “turn a defendant’s actual date of trial into a moving target.. .[and] there must exist a fixed point in time by which the timeliness of a defendant’s jury waiver can be determined.” Id., p. 20, 2012-2243, 144 So.3d at 735. As such, in an effort to prevent last minute jury trial waivers, “we interpret[ed] the term ‘trial date’ in La. Const, art. I, § 17(a) to mean the initial trial setting.” Id., p. 21, 2012-2243, 144 So.3d at 735.

Under the given facts, we find the district court misapplied La.C.Cr.P. art. 780 and Bazile after the case was transferred to his section of Orleans Parish Criminal Court by designating a new initial trial setting for purposes of calculating the delay for the filing of a waiver of right to jury trial. The defendant had filed an earlier motion to waive in another section of court, which was denied as untimely. This court denied the defendant supervisory relief. State v. Landrieu, 2017-0009 (La. 2/10/17), 216 So.3d 48. Further, this dispute arises because the defendant’s case was transferred from another section within the same court. See, State v. Cannon, 185 La. 395, 169 So. 446, 447 (1936) (“There is only one criminal district court in the parish of Orleans.... The different sections are not different courts, but are separate sections or divisions of the same court.”). However, the transfer was administrative in nature due to a local rule, and not a state procedural rule. See La. Dist. Ct. Rules Appendix — Criminal District Court for Orleans Parish, Rule 14.0A. Moreover, the amendment to the bill of information as to the date of the offense that triggered the transfer was not a substantive change, as it did not pertain to the elements of the |2crime and the state was not obligated to specify a date on the bill. La. C.Cr.P. art. 468 (“The date or time of the commission of the offense need not be alleged in the indictment, unless the date or time is essential to the offense.”). Additionally, the district court’s designation of a new initial trial date invites the re-litigation of any pre-trial rulings addressed in the other section of court. The court’s action jeopardizes the finality of these rulings, which goes to the heart of the policy considerations articulated in Bazile.

As such, the ruling of the district court granting the motion to waive the right to jury trial is reversed. The case is remanded for further proceedings.

Weimer, J., dissents and would grant and docket the matter.

Hughes, J., would grant and docket.

WEIMER, J.,

dissenting.

IT would grant and docket this matter.


text:
    IN RE: INTERDICTION OF Bette Wilson CADWELL
    2017-CC-818
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    06/16/2017
    HUGHES, J., would grant and assigns reasons.
   Hughes, J.,

would grant the writ.

hi respectfully dissent and would grant the writ. Circular logic should not be used to deny the “preliminary” interdict an attorney of her choice. A final judgment of interdiction has not yet been rendered. Every effort should be made to allow the proposed interdict to speak in order to avoid the appearance that she has been railroaded against her will.

I note also La. Code Civ. P. art. 4554, which provides (emphasis added):

On motion of the court or any person, including the interdict, the court may modify or terminate its judgment when the court finds, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the terms of that judgment are currently either excessive or insufficient or that the ability of the interdict to care for his person or property has so changed as to warrant modification or termination. Except for good cause, the court shall follow substantially the same procedures that apply to an original petition for interdiction before it modifies or terminates an interdiction judgment.


text:
    IN RE: James Paul JOHNSON
    NO. 2017-B-0709
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 24, 2017
   ORDER

h Considering the Petition for Interim Suspension filed by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel, the response thereto filed by respondent, and the Supplemental and Amended Petition for Interim Suspension filed by the ODC,

IT IS ORDERED that James Paul Johnson, Louisiana Bar Roll number 29271, be and he hereby is suspended from the practice of law on an interim basis pursuant to Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 19, pending further orders of this court.

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

FOR THE COURT:

/s/ Jefferson D, Hughes, III JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA


text:
    STATE EX REL. Michael CLENNON v. STATE of Louisiana
    No. 2016-KH-0406
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 26, 2017
   PER CURIAM:

11 Denied. There is no error in the lower courts’ rulings. We attach hereto and make a part hereof the district court’s written reasons denying relief. ■

Relator has now fully litigated several applications 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 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.

laAttachment


text:
    IN RE: George William JARMAN
    NO. 2017-OB-0693
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 26, 2017
   ORDER

| Respondent was convicted of the receipt and attempted receipt of child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2252A(a)(2) and (b)(1). Respondent now seeks to permanently resign from the practice of law in lieu of discipline. The Office of Disciplinary Counsel (“ODC”) has concurred in respondent’s petition.

Having considered the Petition for Permanent Resignation from the Practice of Law filed by George William Jarman, Louisiana Bar Roll number 7238, and the concurrence thereto filed by the ODC,

IT IS ORDERED that the request of George William Jarman for permanent resignation in lieu of discipline be and is hereby granted, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 20.1 and Rule 5.5 of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that George William Jarman shall be permanently prohibited from practicing law in Louisiana or in any other jurisdiction in which he is admitted to the practice of law; shall be permanently prohibited from seeking readmission to the practice of law in this state or in any other jurisdiction in which he is admitted; and shall be permanently prohibited from seeking admission to the practice of law in any jurisdiction.

FOR THE COURT:

/s/ John L. Weimer JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA


text:
    Mark DELESDERNIER, Jr., et al. v. D. Douglas HOWARD, Jr., et al.
    NO. 2017-CC-0449
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 24, 2017
   Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Plaquemines, 25th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 62-996; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2016-C-1285

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


text:
    Lucas MCLAUGHLIN v. LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONS
    NO. 2017-CI-0518
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 24, 2017
   Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. I, No. 628,277; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2015 CW 0412;

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


text:
    STATE EX REL. James Michael LAWRENCE v. STATE of Louisiana
    NO. 2015-KH-0770
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 24, 2017
   Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Divj. F, No. 542222; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2014 KA 1448;

| iDenied.


text:
    Derrick DAVIS v. LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONS
    NO. 2016-CI-0002
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 24, 2017
   Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. F, No. C634849; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2015 CA 0377;

|! Denied.


text:
    Preston G. DEMOUCHETTE, Jr. v. LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONS
    NO. 2016-CI-0426
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 24, 2017
   Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 623,630; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2015 CA 0968;

h Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Willie R. JACKSON
    NO. 2016-KO-0717
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 24, 2017
   Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. A, No. 515-119; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2015-KA-0222

h Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Donald LAW
    NO. 2016-K-0926
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 24, 2017
   Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of W. Baton Rouge, 18th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 2015-KA-0210; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2015-KA-0210;

| ] Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Fahim A. SHAIKH
    NO. 2016-K-0756
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 24, 2017
   Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Beauregard, 36th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. CR-2014-313; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 15-687;

| denied.

HUGHES, J., would grant.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Michael HEBERT
    NO. 2016-KO-0834
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 24, 2017
   Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. G, No. 09-13-0383; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2015 KA 1455;

| TDenied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Mark Wayne THIBODEAUX
    NO. 2016-KO-0844
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 24, 2017
   Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Calcasieu, 14th Judicial District Court Div. F, No. 3991-12; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 15-723

^Denied.

GENOVESE, J., recused.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Frankie BASKIN
    NO. 2016-KO-0833
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 24, 2017
   Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 11-4594; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 15-KA-704

11 Denied.

GUIDRY, J., recused.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Jeremi PATTERSON
    NO. 2016-K-0721
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 1, 2017
   Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. A, No. 481-693; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2015-KA-0775

| ¶ Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Freddie NAVARRE
    NO. 2016-KO-0800
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 1, 2017
   Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Lafayette, 15th Judicial District Court Div. K, No. CR 146230; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 15-920;

hDenied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Marion Dales JONES
    NO. 2016-KO-0858
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 1, 2017
   Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Bossier, 26th Judicial District Court Div, B, No, 165,309; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 50,-270-KA;

| iDenied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Corey J. LADD
    NO. 2016-K-0915
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 1, 2017
   Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. I, No. 509-017; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2015-KA-0772

hDenied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Jabari Chabwera SMITH
    NO. 2016-KO-0957
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 1, 2017
   Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court- Div. G, No. 556585-1; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2015 KA 1624

|! Denied.

JOHNSON, C.J., would grant.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Dveil Deshon FREEMAN
    NO. 2016-K-0927
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 1, 2017
   Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Ouachita, 4th Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 10-F-0808; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 50,282-KA;

h Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Louis Dewayne ALEXANDER
    NO. 2016-KO-0943
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 1, 2017
   Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Ouachita, 4th Judicial District Court Div. K, No. 13-F-1274; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 50,486-KA;

| /Denied.


text:
    Lonny HAYES v. Viviana Trevino DE BARTON, et al.
    NO. 2017-C-0458
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 1, 2017
   Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Calcasieu, 14th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 14-2431; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CA 16-541;

| t Denied.

HUGHES, J., would grant.

GENOVESE,J., would grant.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Lewis Ezekiel GALLOWAY
    No. 2016-KO-1050
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 1, 2017
   Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 527474; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2015 KA 1519;

| iDenied.


text:
    NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC v. Gena F. PARHAM a/k/a Gena Renee Fuller Parham and Brent Lee Parham
    NO. 2017-CC-0460
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 1, 2017
   Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Bossier, 26th Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 143,494; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 51,-102-CW;

11 Denied.


text:
    Douglas and Lisa ENGLAND v. T.J. LAMBRECHT CONSTRUCTION, INC., et al.
    NO. 2017-CC-0329
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 1, 2017
   Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 577,459; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 51,-425-CW

| denied.

HUGHES, J., would grant.

GENOVESE, J., would grant.


text:
    Joshua MORRIS and Jeremy Watson v. Dirk RAINWATER, M.D., Louisiana Medical Mutual Insurance Company, and Jackson Parish Service District No. 1 d/b/a/ Jackson Parish Hospital
    NO. 2017-C-0414
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 1, 2017
   Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Jackson, 2nd Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 33,085; to the Court of. Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 51,-018-CA;

1 denied.


text:
    IBERVILLE PARISH SCHOOL BOARD v. LOUISIANA STATE BOARD OF ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION and the State of Louisiana through the State Department of Education Louisiana Association of Educators, Caddo Association of Educators, Calcasieu Association of Educators, Inc., Concordia Association of Educators, the East Baton Rouge Association of Educators, Lafayette Parish Association of Educators, Madison Association of Educators, Monroe Association of Educators, St. Landry Association of Educators, St. Mary Association of Educators, Ann Burruss, Rev. Oscar Hamilton, Deborah Hargrave, Melinda Waller Mangham and Thomas Tate v. State of Louisiana, the Louisiana State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education and the State of Louisiana through the Department of Education
    NO. 2017-C-0257
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 12, 2017
   Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. 0, No. 663193 C/W 633874; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2015 CA 1416 C/W 2015 CA 1417;

h Granted and docketed as an appeal.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Jovan MURPHY
    NO. 2016-K-0936
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 12, 2017
   Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Ascension, 23rd Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 31,006; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2015 KA 1326

hNot considered. Not timely filed. See Supreme Court Rule X, § 5 (a).


text:
    STATE EX REL. Rodney JOHNSON v. STATE of Louisiana
    No. 2017-KH-0059
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 12, 2017
   Applying for Reconsideration of this Court’s action dated February 24, 2017; Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. D, No. 471-169; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Nos. 2016-K-0501, 2016-K-0789;

11 Reconsideration denied.


text:
    IN RE: COMMITTEE ON BAR ADMISSIONS CFN-9711
    No. 2017-BA-0254
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 12, 2017
   Applying for Reconsideration of this Court’s action dated, March 24, 2017.

| Reconsideration denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Damian FINLEY
    NO. 2016-KP-0626
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 12, 2017
   Applying For Supervisory and/or — Remedial Writs, Parish of Jackson, 2nd Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 34,398; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 50827-KW;

. Deiüecl ”


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Irvin HARRIS
    NO. 2016-K-0902
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 12, 2017
   Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 13-4308; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 15-KA-485;

I, Denied.


text:
    STATE EX REL. Tyrone CLOFER v. STATE of Louisiana
    NO. 2016-KH-0071
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 12, 2017
   Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of West Feliciana, 20th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 07-WCR-13; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2015 CW 1295;

| denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Joseph MCKINNEY
    NO. 2016-KO-0992
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 12, 2017
   Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Ascension, 23rd Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 32,975; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2015 KA 1503

11 Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Cobey P. THOMAS
    NO. 2016-KO-1054
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 12, 2017
   Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. J, No. 14-6558; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 15 KA-592;

11 Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Darrius G. CLEMENTS
    NO. 2016-KO-1069
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 12, 2017
   Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. L, No, 2015-KA-0630; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2015-KA-0630

|, Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Keddrick KENNON
    NO. 2016-KO-0947
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 19, 2017
   Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Webster, 26th Judicial District Court Div. F, No. 89,051; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 50,-511-KA;

11Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Debbie E. ADAMS aka Debbie Adams
    NO. 2016-K-1099
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 19, 2017
   Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Catahoula, 7⅛ Judicial District Court Div. B, Nos. 12-2404, 12-2405, 12-2406; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Nos. KA 15-613, KA 15-614, KA 15-615;

| TPenied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Reado NARGO a/k/a Renaldo Nargo
    NO. 2016-KO-1313
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 19, 2017
   Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Natchitoches, 10th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. C 19287; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 15-779

11 Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Larry RUDOLPH
    NO. 2016-KK-1550
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 19, 2017
   Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. I, No. 525-354; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2016-K-0548;

| T Denied.

HUGHES, J., would grant.

GENOVESE,J., would grant.


text:
    Jenez FOURNETT v. NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, US Agencies Insurance Company, First Student, Inc., Yolanda Johnson and John Williams
    NO. 2017-CC-0523
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 19, 2017
   Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. N, No. 2012-760; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2017-C-0172;

It Denied.


text:
    Ralph J. HANKS v. LOUISIANA COMPANIES
    NO. 2017-C-0260
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 19, 2017
   Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Calcasieu, 14th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 2012-958; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 16-334

L Denied.

HUGHES, J., would grant.

GENOVESE, J., recused.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Donald EMERY
    NO. 2017-KK-0530
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 19, 2017
   Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. G, No. 16-0866; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 17-K-102

| jDenied.


text:
    Daniel Joseph SMITH, et al v. B.J. ANDREWS, et al
    NO. 2017-C-0468
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 19, 2017
   Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Desoto, 42nd Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 70512; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 51,-186-CA

| TPenied.


text:
    James E. SHIELDS, Jr., Christine F. Shields, James E. Shields, III, and Joseph Luke Shields v. ALVIN R. SAVOIE & ASSOCIATES, INC. d/b/a Savoie Construction, Foster-Tailor Fireplaces, Inc., Lennox Hearth Products LLC, American Empire Surplus Lines Insurance Company, The Travelers Indemnity Company of Connecticut, and ACE American Insurance Company Asi Lloyds as Subrogee of James and Kristin Shields v. Savoie Construction, Inc., Savoie Construction and Development, LLC, and Foster-Taylor Fireplaces, Inc.
    NO. 2017-C-0506
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 19, 2017
   Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 2012-10262 C/W 2012-10392; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2016 CA 0825 C/W 2016 CA 0826;

I iDenied.


text:
    TURBINE GENERATION SERVICES, LLC, et al. v. GE OIL & GAS, INC., et al. Turbine Powered Technology, LLC, et al. v. GE Oil & Gas, Inc., et al.
    NO. 2017-CC-0505
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 19, 2017
   Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Lafayette, 15th Judicial District Court Div. J, No. 2015-2642 C/W 2015-5661; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CW 16-00957;

| denied.


text:
    LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES, as an Agency of the State of Louisiana v. COMITE DIRT PIT, INC.
    NO. 2017-C-0507
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 19, 2017
   Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial. District Court Div. B, No, C579605; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2016 CA 0897

h Denied.


text:
    Scott C. FRANK v. LOUISIANA STATE BOARD OF PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR EXAMINERS
    NO. 2017-C-0508
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 19, 2017
   Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review/ Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. D, No. C635913; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2016 CA 0994;

| iDenied.


text:
    Raymond Charles CRESSY, et al. v. HUFFINES HYUNDAI MCKINNEY, LP, et al.
    NO. 2017-C-0510
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 19, 2017
   Applying For Writ of Certiorariand/or Review, Parish of Natchitoches, 10th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 84,772; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 16- ^

I iDenied.

JOHNSON, C.J., would grant.

GENOVESE, J., would grant.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Kenneth FORTENBERRY
    NO. 2016-K-1599
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    June 5, 2017
   Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. K, No. 526-756; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2016-KA-0379; June 5,2017

1 iDenied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Daylan BRADSTREET
    NO. 2016-KO-1567
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    June 5, 2017
   Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. I, No. 14-1201; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 16-KA-80

[ denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana IN the INTEREST OF R.W.
    NO. 2016-CK-1797
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    June 5, 2017
   Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Orleans Parish Juvenile Court, No. 2016-148-02-DQ-F; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2016-C-0981

| denied.

WEIMER, J., would grant.

GUIDRY, J., would grant.

CLARK, J., would grant.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Randall Glenn MATTHEWS
    NO. 2016-K-1678
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    June 5, 2017
   Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Bossier, 26th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 208,879 AND 208,879A; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 50,838-KA AND 50,839-KA;

| t Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Louis MONROE
    NO. 2016-KO-1698
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    June 5, 2017
   Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. B, No. 516-854; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2015-KA-1151;

| ¶ Denied.


text:
    STATE EX REL. Rodney HAMILTON v. STATE of Louisiana
    NO. 2017-KH-0110
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    June 5, 2017
   Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of West Feliciana, 20th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 16-WCR-601

| iDenied.


text:
    Robert Wayne HACKETT, et ux. v. MURPHY EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION CO. USA
    NO. 2017-C-0627
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    June 5, 2017
   Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Vermilion, 15th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 95387-B; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 15-707

| denied.


text:
    INSULATION SALES & SERVICES, LLC v. MID-SOUTH MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS, INC., et al.
    NO. 2017-CC-0639
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    June 5, 2017
   Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. D, No. C642454; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2017 CW 0239;

| j Denied.


text:
    Joseph HARRIS v. Captian Willie WASHINGTON; State of Louisiana through Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections, Elyan Hunt Correctional Center
    NO. 2017-CC-0641
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    June 5, 2017
   Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Iberville, 18th Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 76194; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2016 CW 1652;

h Denied.

JOHNSON, C.J., would grant.


text:
    CONCERNED CITIZENS OF EASTOVER, LLC v. EASTOVER NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENT AND SECURITY DISTRICT, et al.
    NO. 2017-C-0637
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    June 5, 2017
   Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. B, No. 13-10061; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2016-CA-0756;

I iDenied.


text:
    BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY and A & M College v. Johnny J. CHAVIS
    NO. 2017-CC-0635
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    June 5, 2017
   Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. F, No, 637,463; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2016 CW 1590;

| ^Denied.


text:
    Keyalah BELL v. DEPARTMENT OF POLICE
    NO. 2017-C-0644
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    June 5, 2017
   Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review Orleans Civil Service Commission, No. 8047; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2016-CA-0677;

| denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Kenneth P. JONES, aka Kenneth Paul Jones
    NO. 2016-K-1746
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    June 16, 2017
   Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Desoto, 42nd Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 15-CR-26373; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 50,815-KA;

h Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. James K. BRUNDY, Jr. State of Louisiana v. James Brundy
    NO. 2016-K-1748
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    June 16, 2017
   Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. J, No. 617-563; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2016-KA-0263 C/W 2015-K-1233;

_jjDenied.


text:
    Ali WASHINGTON v. STATE of Louisiana
    NO. 2016-OK-1927
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    June 16, 2017
   Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 02-5954; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 16-KH-545;

|, Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Bene J. BARLETTER
    NO. 2016-K-1816
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    June 16, 2017
   Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. L, No. 493-948; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2016-KA-0383

[ j Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Lovic Wayne COTTON
    NO. 2016-K-1863
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    June 16, 2017
   Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 526858; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2016 ECA 0081;

11 Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. David FALGOUT
    NO. 2016-KO-1831
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    June 16, 2017
   Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. I, No. 518-898; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2015-KA-0953;

| denied.


text:
    MEITEC, INC. v. Ben A. SEALE, Individually and in His Capacity as Independent Executor of the Succession of Merita Kay Seale, Holli Seale Rachal, and Justin D. Seale
    NO. 2017-CC-0650
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    June 16, 2017
   Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. G, No. 736-936 C/W 742-560; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 17-C-106;

| ¶ Denied.

GENOVESE, J., would grant.


text:
    STATE EX REL. Antywane Eric WILLIAMS v. STATE Of Louisiana
    2017-KH-0576
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    June 16, 2017
   Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Bossier, 26th Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 192,617; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 51,-497-KH;

11 Denied.


text:
    Bruce Macon MOORE v. Amy KNOWER
    NO. 2017-C-0653
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    June 16, 2017
   Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, First City Court for the City of New Orleans, No. 2015-04904; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2016-CA-0776

| denied.

GENOVESE, J., would grant.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Gerald BAKER
    NO. 2017-KK-0834
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    June 16, 2017
   Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. H, No. 575200; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2017 KW 0137

| denied.


text:
    Michel Jackson MILLER, Individually and as Natural Turix of Her Minor Son v. The STATE of Louisiana DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Rodney Strain, Sheriff of the Parish of St. Tammany, Northshore Workforce, LLC, Victory Bible Church, a Louisiana Religious Corporation
    NO. 2017-CC-0654
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    June 16, 2017
   Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. I, No. 2015-11850; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2017 CW 0112;

| denied.


text:
    SUCCESSION OF Cheryle MCCANN v. John BONVILLIAN, Sr.
    NO. 2017-CC-0910
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    June 16, 2017
   Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Terrebonne, 32nd Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 177068; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2017 CW 0033;

^Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Steven BRADLEY
    NO. 2017-KK-0660
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    June 16, 2017
   Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. C, No. 521673; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2017-K-0223;

h Denied.


text:
    IN RE: Medical Malpractice Matter of Ray David BRELAND
    NO. 2017-C-0685
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    June 16, 2017
   Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 588,995; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 51,-150-CA

|, Denied.


text:
    ASCENSION PROPERTIES, INC. v. Timothy PUJOL
    NO. 2017-CC-0692
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    June 16, 2017
   Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Ascension, 23rd Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 00104166; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2016 CW 0298;

11 Denied.


text:
    Felix Anthony DEJEAN, IV v. Bradlet R. BURGET
    NO. 2017-CC-0677
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    June 16, 2017
   Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish, of Concordia, 7th Judicial District Court Div, B, No, 49837; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CW 17-00041;

11 Denied.


text:
    Alyssa REILLY and Jeremy Reilly v. SAFEWAY INSURANCE COMPANY OF LOUISIANA, D. T. Read Steel Company, Inc., Tommy Jones, Government Employees Insurance Company, Margaret Laurent, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Taccara Stubbs, Benny Fernandez, MCH Transportation Company, Cherokee Insurance Company, Willie Powell, Allstate Insurance Company and James Construction Group, LLC
    NO. 2017-CC-0699
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    June 16, 2017
   Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. I, No. 647,599; to the Court of Appeal,’First Circuit, No. 2016 CW 1632;

11 Denied.


text:
    IN RE: CONFIDENTIAL PARTY
    NO. 2017-OB-0763
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    June 16, 2017
   Applying For Appeal

| iDenied.


text:
    Gregihald JACK v. WINN-DIXIE STORES, INC., et al.
    NO. 2017-CC-0696
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    June 16, 2017
   Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. John, 40th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 68791; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 17-C-6

It Denied.