author: PER CURIAM:

text:
    STATE EX REL. Douglas CRADDOCK v. STATE of Louisiana
    No. 2016-KH-0912
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    09/15/2017
   PER CURIAM:

h 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). As to the remaining claims, 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.

I ¡A-ttachment

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT ON POST-OOWICTION RELIEF

Petitioner, Douglas Craddock, hiedan Application lor Post-Conviction Relief on July 9,2013, He was convicted of Armed Robbery on October22, zoos and was sentenced to 25 years at hard labor, Hfe February 13,2010 Judgment of conviction and sentence were affirmed on March 2B, 2011 and became finaJ on April 25,2011.

In his Application for Poat-Ccnvlolfon Relief he rafees three claims:

1.He was denied due process under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth

Amendments to the U,S, ConslKutlon try the denial of hfe right to counsel of choice.

2. He was denied effective assistance of counsel to violation of the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S- Constitution,

3. He was- denied due process of law under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to lire U,S. Constitution by errors of the fete! court.

The. State filed an Answer on January 12,2D15. The trial Judge was Judge Alvin Turner, Jr.) however, one of the claims petitioner makes Is premised upon Judge Turner entering tha jury room. Petitioner moved to recuse Judge Turner from hearing this Application for Post-Conviction Relief. Following a hearing, Judge Turner was recused and the matter was re-allotted to tote division on October29,2014.

With regard to petitioner's first claim that he was denied due proce as by the denial oí counsel of his choice, toe petitioner submits the following. Mr. Craddock had a public defender from May t. 200S through toe trial. He now complains that toe counsel he had for sixteen months, Mr, &J. Francis, did not follow through vriih a prelirninaiy examination and other motions, Then, 30 days prior to trial, Mr. Keith Crawford replaced

Js.

Mr, Francis as his public defender. Hé expressed cornearas that this was somehow a conflict because Mr. Crawford had previously worked for the District Attorney’s office. However, nothing in the record indicates any conflict because of Mr. Crawford’s prior employment He goes on to submit tbtó Pegram Mira, Jr, was going to represent him and that he informed Mr, Crawford of this at the trial date. The trial court refused to grant a continuance, in his traverse to the State's Answer, ho contends there was no evidence that he needed court appointed counsel and that his family could afford, counsel.

if the defendant couid afford counsel, he certainly did not assert that from May 1, 2008 until the trial in October 2009. To do so at trial and not complain that he was denied due process until now is without merit. Defendant had ample opportunity to hire counsel, or at a minimum, make the Court aware of his desire to do so before commencement of trial, if his complaint is that he simpiy did not want Mr. Crawford representing him, he does not have a right to counsel of hfc choice when ha has court appointed counsel. U.S. v. Gonzales-Lopez. 548 U.S. 140,129 S. Ct, 2657, 165 L. Ed. 2d 409 (20QS). Thus, petitioner's first claim te dismissed.

In his second claim, he contends he did not have effective assistance,of counsel in the following respects;

1. Counsel was ineffective when tfisy failed to conduct a preifminaiy examination after the petitioner requested one,

2. Counsel was ineffective when ha failed to exercise a peremptory strike on-juror Curtis Mira.

3. Counsel was ineffective when ho failed to exercise a peremptory strike on juror Justine James.

■A. Counsel was tnelfeoüve when he failed to exercise a peremptory strike on juror Richard LsBianc,

5. Counsel was ineffective whan ha failed to object to the Court subjecting the jury to a nearly elghtaen hour day.

The landmark case for addressing claims of ineffective assistance of counsel is

Strickland y. Washington. 486 U.S. 668,104 S. a. 2052,80 L. Ed. Sd 874 (1984). The Court held that the benchmark forjudglngany claim of ineffectiveness of counsel must be whether counsel’s conduct eq undermined the proper functioning of the adversarial

process lhatihe trial cannot be reliad on having produced a just result. A convicted defendant’s claim that counsel’s assistance was so defective as to require reversal of a conviction has two components. First, the defendant must show that counsels performance was deficient. This requires showing that counsel made errors so serious that counsel was not functioning as the ’'counsel' guaranteed the defendant by the Sixth Amendment Second, the defendant must show mat the deficient performance

prejudiced thu defense. This requires showing that counsel's errors were so serious as to deprive the defendant bf a fair trial with a reliable result. lithe proper standard for attorney performance (s that ot reasonably effective assistance, Tréonoli v. United States. 725 F. Sd 140 (2d Cir. 1083). the Sixth Amendment refers to 'counsel", it does hot specify the requirements for counsel to be effective, Strickland, it “relies instead on the legal profession's maintenance of standards sufficient to justify the taw’s presumption thai counsel wl|| fulfill fee rote in the adversary process that the ■ Amendment envisions." Mtehal v, Louisiana. 350 U.S. 91 76 S. Ct. 158,1DQ L Ed. 83 (19S5). Anytime a claim of ineffectiveness is presented, the performance inquiry must be whether counsePs assistance was reasonable considering ell the circumstances. Strickland. Judicial scrutiny of counsePs performance muisf.be highly deferential. There Is a strong presumption that counsel’s conduct falls within file wide range of reasonable professional assistance; thai is, the defendant mtist overcome the presumption that, underthe circumstances, the challenged action might ¡be considered sound trial strategy. Michel.

Turning to the second prong of Strickland, an error fry counsel, sven if professionally unreasonable, does not warrant setting aside the judgment of a criminal proceeding If the error had no effect ort the judgment United States v. Morrison. 449. U.S. 361,101 S. Ct. 665,66 L Ed. 2d 664 (1981); Strickland. The defendant musí shew particular errors ot counsel had an actual adverse effect on the defense. It is not enough

_k

to show that the errors had some conceivable effect on the outcome of the proceeding. .StricMsmt

As Mr. Craddock stated, a Motion for Preliminary Exam was requested, as were Motions for Discovery, Bin of Particulars, and to Produce Documents. They were all set, for {rearing several times, but not ruled Upon, Measuring this against the tro prong test of Strickland, aven if defensa counsel acted fn an unreasonable manner, Mr. Craddock falls to show an actual adverse effect on the defense. The evidence presented in the oese tnoludecfthe apprehension of petitioner In the vehicle described by eyewitnesses. He was in possession of the gxin used In the robbery, es well as the medication and cash that was taken fn fee robbery, Furthermore, his statements Implicated himself in fea robbeiy, and ha was identified by eyewitnesses. Thus, ha has failed to demonstrate that hte attorney’s failure to conduct a preliminary examination would have changed the outcome of the tria!. His attorney was also afforded benefit of opon, file discovery, thus failure to'hear the Motion for Bill of Particulars was not prejudicial to Mr. Craddock.

With regard to his claims that his ettomay was ineffedivo because he failed to exercise peremptory challenges on three Jurors; namely, Curtis Mire, Justine 'James, end Richard LeBlanc, this goes to the trial sfrategy.of defense counsel. Teaape v. Scotf. 60 F, 3d 1167 (5m Cir. 1995). Although all three jurors made statements in voir dire that taken In Isolation may seam biased, ail three testified that they could follow the law, keep an open mind, and be unbiased. A® such, Mr, Craddock fells to meet the Strickland test on these issues as well.

Finally, Mr. Craddock submits that hfe counsel was inefectiva (or failing to object to the Court keeping the jury for eighteen hours. The minutes do not reflect the exact start time whan lha jury was called; however, it would have been no eariler than 9:00 a.m. The minutes rafted feat a verdict was reached at 1:22 a,m. That would have been approximately sixteen hours. Nonetheless, whether it was sixteen or eighteen hoars, there fe no indication feat the jury was strained or wanted to go home. Additionally, fee minutes refect numerous breaks taken. Thus, this claim Is also without merit.

-k

This Court must consider the totality of the evidence before the jury. As stated in Strickland. the question Is whether there is a reasonable probability that absent the errors, th* fact Under would have had a reasonable doubt respecting guilt. Considering the totality of the evidence presented, petitioner has fallad la prove that his counsel mads errors such that an adverse effect was had upon the defence. Claim two of hie application Is dismissed.

In hte final claim, petitioner claims he was dented due process by errors of the Court, He discusses Bib claims raised In claims one and two. This Court will not address those claims again herein. Contentions that failure to record certain proceedings Is reversible error should have been raised on appeal. A* such, this contention is without merit pursuant*? La. Code of Criminal Procedure Article 030.4. Likewise, bis claim of reversible error by the Court In reading the sentence for armed robbery also should have been raised on appeal and fs dismissed.

Finally, Mr. Craddock contends mat It was error for the trial judge to enter the Jury room during deliberations, The minutes reflect that the jury recessed for deliberations at 12:12 a.nj. The minutes further stale, 'Jury sent note to Judge which read as follows-‘Package, gun, part-deff (sic) of Ia rob. Judge sent the evidence (package, gun, and :' part of gun) to Jury room. Court entered jury room to get clarification on note", Louisiana Code of Crimina} Procedure Article 791 provides in partlrtstttjaart that a jury is sequestered by being kept together in the charge of an officer of the court so as to be secluded from outside communication. An unauthorized communication to the jury by a court official requires reversal of the verdict If Ihe communication Is prejudicial to the accused. State v. Matchand. 362 So. 2d 1090 (La. 1976). Additionally, the rule of sequestration does not prohibit communication between the Judge and jury when such communication Is within the bounds of trial related necessity. State v. Copeland. 419 So. 2d 899 (La. 19B2). Here, the minutes reflect that the Judge entered the jury room ⅝ gat clarification on note," Over an hour passed before the verdict was reached. There ⅛ no evidence that this communication was prejudicial to the defense. Additionally, In State v,. Allen. 662 So, 2d 713 (La, 1996), the Supreme Court held that communications between the Judge and jury concerning the jury’s confusion over possible verdicts was

_Ll

within tho bounds of trial related necessity. As such, aU Issues raised in claim three are also without merit and dismissed.

SIGNED AND ORDERED at NapoteonvBle, Louisiana, thta^L^l day of Jurse, 2015.

PLEASE NOTIFY!

Mr. Alan Robert, Counsel for Douglas Craddock

Ms. JonI Buquoi, ADA


source: Caselaw Access Project

license: Public Domain

text:
    STATE EX REL. Deon Tremell LEE v. STATE of Louisiana
    No. 2016-KH-0946
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    09/15/2017
   ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE NINETEENTH, JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF EAST BATON ROUGE

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.

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:
    JUDICIARY COMMISSION
    NO. 00-1875
    NO. 2017-O-1167
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    09/15/2017
    HUGHES, J., concurs and assigns reasons.
   Hughes, J.,

concurs.

| because the Commission has not made a recommendation of discipline to this court, the court’s original jurisdiction has not vested, and the requested information cannot be disclosed.


text:
    STATE EX REL. Elliot James WILKINSON v. STATE of Louisiana
    No. 2017-KH-1159
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    09/15/2017
   ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE TWENTY-SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF ST. TAMMANY

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. Carl ANDERSON v. STATE of Louisiana
    No. 2016-KH-0910
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    09/15/2017
   ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF CADDO

PER CURIAM:

| denied. Relator fails to show entitlement to DNA testing. La.C.Cr.P. art. 926.1. 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 limitar tions 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 claim has 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

RULING

GaAngust 22,2007, Petitioner, GAEL ANDERSON, pled guilty of two counts of armed robbery and one erast-of forcible ripe. The Court Mbm»d Ped&mer of his MrasfitatSonal£3gtea»ptsDíi>íS*í«>,A5otw. ^«n^onjfeeCowtsctítenoedpot&itínw as to each count to bo confined at bard labor fbr a pari »t! of forty (40) years and tommitiod

taitetotntóaMDcpSrtawntofCorrecfioto^bjebttothaoonfitícMmptoVidedbylJK'r. The

Court ordered each sentence to be served withoitt benefit of probe&w, parole, nr suspension of sentence. The Court ordered Petitioner to pay costs through the Waste bwisag system, each sentence to be served concurrently with each other, with credit given for time served. The Court informed toe Petitioner of ids right to post-conviction, relief proceedings.

The subject oftbte ruling is Petitioner's 'TWformÁOTlJcudoRtoEost-Cottviofion Relief" filed lone 19; 2015 snd'Trmsw to Application for Post-Conviction Relief’, filed October 6, 2015, kit Application and Traverse, PtfitiMier segues that aJ)NA. test ontha victim and her «tartiaeja; would have established Petitioner’s tnnoceace. Although the Apphcafiati'is fils stanpctUune 19, .2015, this Court fid not receive the Application for-review until October 9,2015.

Petitioner's entrant application is untimely, To be considered, an application fbr pcst-conviottun. relief must be filed within tWo years of the Conviction. la. C. Or. JP. 4rt. 930.8. The toavictionin ⅛& cose has been£mil since 2007 and Pciitionef baa notasHfflM an exception ’to the two-year time Itaiitatton tor 3«⅞⅛⅛ post-conviction railed Additionally, Pefittcner pled guilty. At the tíme of his guilty of plea, Petitioner was informed that by pleading guilty he waived bis fight to ftrtta* argue bis guilt or innoceBne aiáfealso wlúvM.rightlo appeal¾⅛⅞⅛ ofths State’s cass sgataüiita. Xtatefbw, Pdffi(»«rfeiI}an^ñota:»istos&&dsám:líátJbisisteno6aioo.

_k

•Stoftar tegotoa ⅛⅝&« ¾ Post-Coiwicfion. Sato?’ filed June 19,2015 and "Tiayerseta Post-ConvfetioisSisfiisl?’, filed 0⅜>⅛⅛201⅜ ata both.BESIED.

Tbe Cfci of Court ⅛ daested to.protddc-a eopy'of tHa-Rufingto die Pttiticmet, ⅛ custodkaTOd to District Aaoniey.

2015j,mSbíeveport, Caddo 3⅛⅛⅜ DoiariBna.


text:
    STATE EX REL. Cody SMOOT v. STATE of Louisiana
    No. 2016-KH-0895
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    09/15/2017
   ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE TWENTY-FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF JEFFERSON

PER CURIAM:

h 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). 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.

| {Attachment

On January 24,2013,toe petitioner was convicted of LSA-K.S. 14:30.1,8*90114 degree munfcr. On January 31,2053,toocotaseaitettiredhimtol¡fo£digri!Kintpeat. Hisoonvtétfanwas attorned oaappeal. dita v, Start, 13-KA-453 (La, App. S Cir. 1/15/14), 134 So‘3d 1; writ denial, 2014-KQ-297 (La. 9/12/14) 147 So,3d 704,

Petitioner now files an application fcr post-conviction relief, ailegtog-this Hallowing claims:

1. Ineffective assistance of counsel at trial An counsel f&Ueil to file a'motion to supplies search warrants.

2, Ineffective assistance of counsel at trial when trial couawl tailed to reject to hearsay identification.

It in clear that the petitioner has a Sixth Amendment right to effective legal, Counsel. Under the well-hnown standard set out in Strtcklqnd v. Washington, 466 U.S, 66B, lM.S.Ct 2052,80 LEd2d 674 (1984). and State v. Washington, 491 So,2d 13Í7 IXb.1986), a/sonviottou must be levanted if the tiafeadaat proyes (1) that ooimsel's performance feli below on. objective Standard of reasonableness under prevailing profendoual nouns, and (2) counsel's inadequate performance prejudiced dBfen&mtto.too «Scat feat toe trial vms rendered uafelr and fen verdict suspect. Stott V. Legtand, 20024462 (La. 123/03), 864 SoJ2ti fiS.

To be sueoeeafti’fe arguing a data of Ine&sdivo asslstenco of counsel, a pospeonvfcSon petitioner moat prove detiotent performance to too point that ootmsel is not ilraotiamng as counsel within the meaning of fee Sixth Amendment., A petitioner most also prrovo actual ■prejudice to fee point feat fee resulte of fee trial cannot be trusted. It la absolutely uuentid tint hoto prongs of tile áfrMtowflestnnist be established before retiefwlll bo-grastedby a reviewing court

Purthetinore, there is a strong presumption feat counsel’s performance ⅛ within the wide range of effective representation. Effective counsel, however, dice not swan ottorjeaa counsel and fee reviewing court does not judge counsel’s perfbmxonbe with the distorting benefits of hmdsigljt, but rather determines whether oounsel was reasonably likely to render effective assistance.Sta v. Soler, 93-1042 (La.App. SA 4/26/94), 636 So2d 1069,1075.

Mindfld of controlling federal and state jurispnidence, titis court now turna to toe spedfio claims of ineffective assistance made in toB instant application and argued in tits petitioner's memorandum in support,

flbtim ⅛1

Petitioner claims feat counsel was ineffective for toiling to file a motion to suppress toe seatoh and arrest TheLotriskmaSapremeCkmttioeeutiyexpldhed,

Its evaluating faoffectivo asdstance of «ninael claims baaed on a Allure to punuo it motion to suppress, courts normally regid» apetitionerto show toe overiooted motion to srqrpess would have been meritorious and toot tittle is a reasonabie probability toe jury would have reached a different vordlot absent the inftoduotioa of the ntdttwfM evidenoe,

-la.

Ortk-Sandaval v. Clarice, 323 F.3d 1165, 1170 (⅝ Cir.2003) (crttog KSmmlman v Morrison, 477 U.S. 365, 106 S.Ct. 2574,91 L£d2t! 305 (1986)). Thru, if a reasonably competent attorney could have suppressed the evidence and ns a result, tho State would lavo dismissed tho charges, 8¡s petitioner may show a buds tor relief. See Northrop v. Trimtt, 265 VM 372,383-84 (6* C&2001) (an ban a ) (conviction vaoaied baaed on ineffective assistance: “(djuring his representation,, [counsel] taw that police had arguably seized Norttatp based upon no mm than an anonymous tip without ¡my supporting verifiable detail.,. Without tbs Inadmissible cocaine evidence, Michigan, would obviously have Med to meet to buiden of proving Northrop possessed &> cocaine,"); tita» v. Xehdmhaeh, 153 Washed 126, 101 P.3d 80, 87 (Wash2004) (because contraband was fltegally seized tee existed'no tatted tesis fe ⅛ move to suppress ⅛ counsel’s perfimnanee dearly prejudicial).

State v. Zee, 2014-2374 (U. 9/18/15).

Petitioner first argues tot counsel was ineffective far atorre to file a morion to suppress the evidence tound la petitioner's home and challenges the wanant Howfcver, as the State points out in its response, the detective presented evidence to the commissioner to justify a reasonable belief that petitioner committed the crime, end that evidence of the crane could be tound at the residence, especially considering that petitioner was seen leaving the residence minutes befbre the gunshots Wstu heard. Upon fto scroll, ammunition was recovered, establishing a nexus between tho crime and the residence, Probable cause was established.

Furthermore, the louisiata .Supreme Court has held that as long es an officer acting in good fifth reasonably believes be is providing a magistrate with sufficient information for issuance oí a «arch warrant, suppression of evidence ⅛ not required due to a later finding of lack of probable Cause, State v. Lons, 2003-KK-2592 (La. 9/9/04), 884 Solid 1176. Henc% in this cose, even if with insufficient probable cause, there would bo no basis for a motion to supprerv, and any motion would bo without merit,

Petitioner argues that counsel was .ineffective tor toilure tafite the motion to suppress the evidence fbttnd in petitioner’s vehiole. The finds no merit to, this drum, os toe officers presented evidence sufficient to establish probable cause that evidence of the crime could be &uud in petitioner’s vehicle, and insinuates that toe officers acted in bad fisto in presenting probable causo to the magistrate. Petitioner also argues that toe officers Searched too vehicle prior to altering toe search warrant As fto State points out k to tespcaiso, toe Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal hu held that* search of a suspect’» vehiole parked In front of a residence was valid pursuant to warrant authorizing the search of a residence:

Based on our review of the application, too warrant and the jurisprudent», we find that defenttanfs «summit on tiris Issue is without merit Although toe affidavit on which ft* wsrnnt was based rete several times specific*! iy to the Monte Carlo, the warrant itself does not refer to any vehicles. However, a warrant mithotfetag the search of aparticnlariy described premises permits the seatoh of a vehicle located on toe_ premises targeted ⅛ too search and subject to. the authority of toe warrant State v. 'Smith, 02-1842, p, 1 (1*9/20/02),827So2d 1122,1123 (percuriam)]Statev. Carter, 10-973,p, 8 (LaApp. 5 Cir. 8/30/H), 75 So3d 1,5. The rationale behind this holding is that too vehicle is capable of concealing toe sought-after contraband. Id, Accordingly, toe search of dofea&cfs vehicle waa wild pwsunnt to the warrant since it was parted in fiont of the residence which was the uugot of ton search Bnd which waa partiedtariy described in toe wanant This assignment of error iswithout merit

Safe v, Washington, 11-716 (L* App. 5 Cir, .3/13/12), 90 So. 34 1157, U6I (I* Ct App. 2012). Hence, sirs' motion fihad to contest tin search of toe vehicle would be without merit

Petitioner tofts to meettoe Stricldaud requirements tor proving ineffective assistance of counsel, ss he Ms to toowtoatcouhsel acted deficiently, ortoat any prejudice Desalted.

⅝⅜

Petitioner data that counsel wss ineffective fto totting to object to hearsay identification testimony of Detective Goff during too hearing on toe Motion, to Suppress ’Identification and at trial.

Regarding toe hearing on toe Motion to Suppress Identification, hearsay evidence is admissible. State V. Chisolm, 12-2278 (t* 10/22/12), 99 So.3d48.

Jl

Kegaidteg the testimony of presented at trial, ñuto La. C.E; at 801(05(1X4 a statement is not hearsay if,., the declarant testifies at the trial or hearing and is subject to cross-oxamanKtion concerning tho stet&mao^ and tí» statement is one of identification of a person made after perceiving tho person.

As such, die statements made by pet Goff at trial are statutorily not hearsay, The court finds no deficiency in counsel’s performance‘in not objecting to fifis testimony, as any objection would itave'olearly been overruled and without matt. Furthermore, petitioner feita to prove preludies.

Under LSA-C.Cr,P. art 930,2, die petitioner in an application for past-conviction relief shall have the burden of proving that relief should bo granted. Tho petitioner has not presented sufficient evidence in support of any of these claims, and thus he? ndttoot his burden.

Under LSA-C,Gr,P, art, 929, if the court determines that the factual and legal issues ctn he resolved based upon application and answer, and supporting documents, tho court may grant or deny relief1tátbout proceedings.


text:
    STATE EX REL. Demond CAREY v. STATE of Louisiana
    No. 2016-KH-0894
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    09/15/2017
   ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF CADDO

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). Furthermore, relator’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence was fully litigated on direct review and therefore barred by La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4(A). See State v. Carey, 47,650 (La.App. 2 Cir. 2/27/13), 110 So.3d 221, writ denied, 13-0726 (La. 11/1/13), 125 So.3d 417. 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.

[¡Attachment

On Gctobar27,20n,Petititmanvas convicted of Manslaughter. OnDecember 14,2011, Petitioner was sentenced as a Second Felony Habitwd Offender to be confined fcr eighty (80) years at hard labor. He was subsequently committed to the Louisiana Department of Corrections, subject to the conditions provided by law. Tire Court oldered that Petitioner’s sentence be served without the benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence. The Court also informed Petitioner of his tight Jo post-conviction relief proceedings. On February 27, 2013, the Second Circuit Court Appeal affirmed Petitioner's conviction and. sentence. Store v. Carey, 47,650 (La. App. 2d Cir, 2/27/13), U0So.3d221,

Currently, this'Court has for its consideration Petitioner’s Application for Post-

Conviction Relief, filed on February 6,2014. On December 17,2015, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals issued a Writ of Mandamus for an Application purportedly filed by Petitioner on .January 30,201'4. There ⅛ no record of an application being filed on January 30,2014; however, it appears IhatPetitionur’s February 6,2014, application is outstanding. For to following reasons, Petitioner Application to Posti-Conviction Relief, filed on February 6,2014, is DESNUtR,

hr Petitioner’s Application, ho argues that he'received ineffective assistance of counsel. Specifically, Petitioner argues that his defense counsel &iled to adequately investigate the crime. He further argues that counsel fitted to interview oertaln patties that may have been able to provide

exculpatory evidence.

To succeed on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, Petitioner must first satisfy the test set forth by the United States Supreme Court in Strickland v, Washington, 466 U.S. 6S8 (3 984). Petitioner must show that counsel’s performance was deficient, that the deficiency prejudicedhim, and that counsel's' error was so serious that it violated Petitioner’s tight to «Effective assistance of counsel as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment ofthe U.S, Constitution. Aiat686. The Petitioner must prove actual prejudice before relief will be granted. ⅞ is not sufficient to the Petitioner, to showthe error-Had some conceivable effect on the outcome of the proceedings, Rather; he must


text:
    STATE EX REL. Byron SCOTT v. STATE of Louisiana
    No. 2016-KH-0893
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    09/15/2017
   ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF ORLEANS

PER CURIAM:

Writ denied as moot. See La. R.S. 15:574.4(F) (as amended by 2017 La. Acts 280, eff. November 1, 2017).


text:
    STATE EX REL. Ulysses HILL v. STATE of Louisiana
    No. 2016-KH-0877
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    09/15/2017
   ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF ORLEANS

PER CURIAM:

11 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). As to the remaining claims, relator fails to satisfy his post-conviction burden of proof. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.2.

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 EX REL. Emanuel RANDALL v. STATE of Louisiana
    No. 2016-KH-0872
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    09/15/2017
   ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF ORLEANS

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 has previously exhausted his right to state collateral review. See State ex rel. Randall v. State, 15-1974 (La. 2/3/17), 209 So.3d 698.

HUGHES, J., would grant in part.'


text:
    STATE EX REL. Isaac JONES v. STATE of Louisiana
    No. 2016-KH-0829
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    9/15/2017
   ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE TWENTY-FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF JEFFERSON

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 denying relief.

Relator has now fully litigated his third 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 the writ to obtain trial exhibits.

| ^Attachment


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Ashleigh J. BURROUGHS
    No. 2016-KP-0810
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    09/15/2017
   ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE SIXTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF TENSAS

PER CURIAM:

| denied. Relator fails to show any factual issues of significance are sharply contested and therefore fails to show the district court abused its discretion when it resolved her claims without an evidentiary hearing. La.C.Cr.P. art. 928; La.C.Cr.P. art. 929(A); State ex rel. Tassin v. Whitley, 602 So.2d 721, 722-23 (La. 1992).

Relator has now fully litigated her 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 she can show that one of the narrow exceptions authorizing the filing of' a ■ successive application applies, Lrelator has exhausted her 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. Gene R. HESS
    No. 2016-KP-0780
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    9/15/2017
   ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE TWENTY-FIFTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF PLAQUEMINES

PER CURIAM:

I ¶ Denied. Relator fails to show entitlement to the DNA testing requested. La. C.Cr.P. art. 926.1.

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 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. Dominique JENKINS
    NO. 2017-KD-1521
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 8, 2017
   Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. D, No. 522-823; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2017-K-0756

Stay denied. Writ denied.


text:
    Levi Evan NEWSOM v. Holly Wiggins NEWSOM
    NO. 2017-CJ-1549
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 13, 2017
   Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Bossier, 26th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 153,561; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 51,-893-CW

L Stay denied. Writ denied.

HUGHES, J., would grant.


text:
    Oana CRASI v. Larry Steven CROW
    NO. 2017-CJ-1509
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 13, 2017
   Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. K, No. 2017-12843; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2017 CW 1173

| TPenied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Larry BROUSSARD, Jr. aka Larry James Broussard, Jr. aka Larry J. Broussard, Jr.
    NO. 2016-K-1836
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 15, 2017
   Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Vermilion, 15th Judicial District Court Div. G, No. 56662; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 16-230;

Granted.


text:
    IN RE: Appeal of the DECISION OF the DISCIPLINARY BOARD
    NO. 15-PDB-073
    No. 2017-OB-1061
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 15, 2017
   Applying For Appeal of the Decision of the Disciplinary Board Office of Disciplinary Board, No. 15-PDB-073;

|T Leave to appeal denied.


text:
    STATE EX REL. Troy HAWK v. STATE of Louisiana
    NO. 2016-OK-2061
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 15, 2017
   Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. F, No. 519-662; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2016-K-0989;

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Derick Johnel JORDAN
    NO. 2016-KO-2177
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 15, 2017
   Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 531730-1; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2014 KA 0921-R

[ iDenied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Demetric Lawaderick WHITLOCK
    NO. 2016-K-1954
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 15, 2017
   Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Ouachita, 4th Judicial District Court Div. K, No. 12-F-2923; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 50,757-KA

hNot considered. Not timely filed. See La.S.Ct.R. X, § 5.

JOHNSON, C.J., would consider the merits.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Anthony LEBOEUF, Jr.
    NO. 2016-KO-2126
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 15, 2017
   Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Lafourche, 17th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. C—519866; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2016 KA 0810

11 Denied.

WEIMER, J., recused.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Kendrick Deandre JOHNSON
    NO. 2016-KO-2185
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 15, 2017
   Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. L, No. 06-11-0073; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2016-KA-0514;

I, Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Christopher GADDET
    NO. 2016-KO-2188
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 15, 2017
   Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish* of Lafourche, 17th Judicial District Court Div., No. 541211; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2016 KA 0631

| t Denied.

WEIHER, J., recused.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. William SHIELL
    NO. 2017-K-0041
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 15, 2017
   Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. K, No. 15—3975; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth. Circuit, No. 16-KA-447;

11 Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Terral Wayne BRAND, Jr.
    NO. 2017-K-0167
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 15, 2017
   Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. H, No. 544953; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2016 KA 0960;

| ] Denied.

HUGHES, J., would grant.


text:
    Sherie NAQUIN and Russell Naquin v. MAISON INSURANCE COMPANY
    NO. 2017-CC-0860
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 15, 2017
   IN RE: Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Bernard, 34th Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 14-1018; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2017-C-0226;

|, Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana IN the INTEREST OF E.P.
    NO. 2017-CK-1165
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 15, 2017
   Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Orleans Parish Juvenile Court, No. 3014-021-01 DQ B; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2017-C-0495

|, Denied.

HUGHES, J., would grant.


text:
    Callie Danielle BLAKE v. Brandon Paul MORRIS
    NO. 2017-CJ-1334
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 15, 2017
   Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 593171; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 51,-402-CA;

| denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Gary G. RODGERS
    NO-2016-KO-2189
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 15, 2017
   Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. L, No. 11-5791; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 16-KA-14;

11 Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Terral Wayne BRAND, Jr.
    NO. 2017-JC-0131
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 15, 2017
   Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. H, No. 544953; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2016 KA 0960;

| denied.


text:
    Erik E. MORAN and Susan G. Moran v. The COLOMB FOUNDATION, INC.
    NO. 2017-CC-0710
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 15, 2017
   Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Landry, 27th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 14-C-3136; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CW17-00012;

| denied.


text:
    Misty Luneau NOLAND v. Ryan Michael NOLAND
    NO. 2017-CJ-1162
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 15, 2017
   Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Rapides, 9th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 232,274; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 16-641;

| denied.

JOHNSON, C.J., would grant.

HUGHES, J., would grant.'


text:
    STATE EX REL. Leonard PERKINS v. STATE of Louisiana
    No. 2015-KH-1427
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 15, 2017
   Applying for Reconsideration of this Court’s action dated January 23, 2017; Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 91-1188; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 15-KH-244

11 Reconsideration denied.

GUIDRY, J., recused.


text:
    OPELOUSAS GENERAL HOSPITAL AUTHORITY, a Public Trust, d/b/a Opelousas General Health System and ArkLaMiss Surgery Center, L.L.C. v. FAIRPAY SOLUTIONS, INC.
    NO. 2017-01319
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 15, 2017
   Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of St. Landry, 27th Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 12-01599; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 17-42;

h Denied.


text:
    Calvin WILLIAMS v. STATE of Louisiana
    NO. 2016-KP-0794
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 15, 2017
   IN RE: Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St, Charles, 29th Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 01,444; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 16-KH-25;

Not considered. Untimely filed. See La. S.CLR. X, § 5{a).

JOHNSON, C.J., would consider the merits.


text:
    STATE EX REL. Anthony MOORE a/k/a Anthony J. Moore v. STATE of Louisiana
    NO. 2017-KH-1044
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 15, 2017
   Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Vermilion, 15th Judicial District Court Div. G, No, 55309; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 16-415

11 Writ not considered. Untimely filed pursuant to La.S.Ct.R. X, § 5.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Kenneth W. LAVIGNE
    NO. 2016-KO-2127
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 15, 2017
   Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Ascension, 23rd Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 35,150; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2016 KA 0795;

h Denied.

JOHNSON, C.J., would grant.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Manly Harden GILLEY
    NO. 2016-KO-2163
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 15, 2017
   Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Ascension, 23rd Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 32482; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2016 KA 0632

h Denied,


text:
    Erik E. MORAN and Susan G. Moran v. The COLOMB FOUNDATION, INC.
    NO. 2017-CC-0713
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 15, 2017
   Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Landry, 27th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 14-C-3136; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No, CW17-00020;

| tDenied.


text:
    Karen Sue THIBODEAUX v. GEICO CASUALTY COMPANY, et al.
    NO. 2017-CC-1333
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 15, 2017
   11 Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Lafayette, 15th Judicial Distinct Court Div. G, No. C-20151253; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CW 17-00562

Denied.


text:
    STATE EX REL. Kashie FERNANDEZ v. STATE of Louisiana
    NO. 2016-KH-0869
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 15, 2017
   Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. I, No. 480-784; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2016-K-0278;

hWrit not considered. See La.S.Ct.R. X, § 5(a).


text:
    STATE EX REL. Chawn DESILVA v. STATE of Louisiana
    NO. 2017-KH-1186
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 15, 2017
   Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. H, No. 530—490; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2017-K-0213;

| jWrit not considered. Untimely filed pursuant to La.S.Ct.R. X, § 5.


text:
    IN RE: APPEAL OF the DECISION OF the DISCIPLINARY BOARD
    NO. 17-PDB-014
    NO. 2017-OB-1015
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 15, 2017
   Applying For Appeal of the Decision of the Disciplinary Board Office of Disciplinary Board, No. 17-PDB-014;

h Leave to appeal denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Bengy R. COOLEZ
    NO. 2016-K-1024
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 15, 2017
   Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Vernon, 30th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 80641; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KA 15-916;

| denied.

HUGHES, J., would grant in part.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Earl Kentrell RUFFIN
    NO. 2016-KO-1913
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 15, 2017
   Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Terrebonne, 32nd Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 686,252; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2016 KA 0264

| iDenied.

WEIMER, J., recused.


text:
    LOUISIANA PARTY CO., LLC, as Successor in Interest to Pelican Construction Supplies, LLC v. DESIGN/BUILD ASSOCIATES, INC., Louisiana Party Co., LLC and Joseph J. Bergeron, III
    No. 2017-CC-1249
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 15, 2017
   Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge; 19th Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 648,580; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2017 CW 0495

h Stay denied. Writ denied.

HUGHES, J., would grant.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Kelly L. BARNES
    NO. 2016-K-1807
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 15, 2017
   Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Washington, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. F, No. 15-CR4-128085; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2016 KA 0630;

It Denied.

JOHNSON, C.J., would grant.

HUGHES, J., would grant.

GENOVESE, J., would grant.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Kevin O’Brien ALLEN
    NO. 2016-KO-2046
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 15, 2017
   Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Bossier, 26th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 199853; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No 50,-869-KA;

| denied.

JOHNSON. C.J., would grant.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Myron Lee TURNER
    NO. 2016-KO-2056
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 15, 2017
   Applying For Writ of. Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Plaquemines, 25th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 2014-02794 C/W 2015-03199; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2016-KA-0230;

|! Denied.

JOHNSON, C.J., would grant.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Timothy T. JONES
    NO. 2016-KO-2088
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 15, 2017
   Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. I, No. 520-463; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit; No. 2016-KA-0122;

11 Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Levell JOHNSON
    NO. 2016-KO-2210
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 15, 2017
   Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. N, No. 11-4104; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 16-KA-99;

|, Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Shawn GILMORE
    NO. 2016-K-2094
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 15, 2017
   Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Tangipahoa, 21st Judicial District Court Div. F, ISTo. 1100494; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2016 KA 0464;

| denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Frank ATKINS
    NO. 2016-KO-2221
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 15, 2017
   Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. J, No. 11—12— 0432; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2016 KÁ 0606;

|! Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Dudley MELANCON, Jr.
    NO. 2017-K-0026
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 15, 2017
   Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review-, Parish of St. Landry, 27th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 140266; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit,-No. 16-191

11 Denied. '

GENOVESE, J., recused.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Michael J. REASON
    NO. 2017-K-0003
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 15, 2017
   Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Jefferson, 24th 'Judicial District Court Div. H, No. 12-5959; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 15-KA-695;

It Denied.


text:
    Daniel L. MOORE and Marie Moore v. CITY OF WESTLAKE c/w Philmer Johnson, Jr. and Paola Johnson vs. City of Westlake
    NO. 2017-CC-0749
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 15, 2017
   Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Calcasieu, 14th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 2015-4200 C/W 2015-4201; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CW 17-00022;

| j Denied.

HUGHES, J., would grant.


text:
    Letitia HOSTON, et al. v. RICHLAND PARISH HOSPITAL SERVICE DISTRICT 1-B d/b/a Richardson Medical Center
    NO. 2017-C-0743
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 15, 2017
   Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Richland, 5th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 44055; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 51,-362-CA*

JjDenied.


text:
    Jonathan Heath CARPENTER v. Erin Marie MCDONALD
    NO. 2017-CC-1368
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 15, 2017
   Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of East Feliciana, 20th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 41308; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2017 CW 0713

|! Denied.


text:
    STATE EX REL. Willie Lee PRICE, Jr. a/k/a Willie Price v. STATE of Louisiana
    NO. 2017-KH-0998
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 15, 2017
   Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Avoyelles, 12th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 2013-CR-176957; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 16-899;

|/Writ not considered. Untimely filed pursuant to La.S.Ct.R. X, § 5.


text:
    STATE EX REL. Daylan BRADSTREET v. STATE of Louisiana
    NO. 2017-KH-1138
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 15, 2017
   Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. I, No. 13-1429; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 14-KA-953;

| Writ not considered. Untimely filed pursuant to La,S.Ct.R. X, § 5.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Derrick L. ROSE
    NO. 2016-K-1943
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 15, 2017
   Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Richland, 5th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 2014-F-117; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 50,861-KA

| denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Vincent Devonte DOTSON aka Vincent Dotson
    NO. 2016-K-1992
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 15, 2017
   Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Concordia, 7th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 13-3915; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 16-89;

|, Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Myron Lee TURNER
    NO. 2016-K-2031
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 15, 2017
   Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Plaquemines, 25th Judicial District Court Div, B, No. 15-03199 C/W 14-02794; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2016-KA-0230

| denied.

JOHNSON, C.J., would grant.

WEIMER, J., would grant.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Christopher Lance WASHBURN
    NO. 2016-KO-2153
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 15, 2017
   Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Sabine, 11th Judicial District Court Div., No. 73837; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 16-335

It Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. J’son TURK
    NO. 2016-KO-2230
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 15, 2017
   Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Webster, 26th Judicial District Court Div. F, No. 089712; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 50,-990-KA;

I, Denied.