author: PER CURIAM: CRICHTON, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part.

text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Henri BROADWAY
    No. 2017-KP-0825
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 21, 2018
    ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE NINETEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF EAST BATON ROUGE
   PER CURIAM:

Writ denied. In 1995, an East Baton Rouge Parish jury found relator, Henri Broadway, guilty of the first degree murder of Corporal Betty Smothers. After finding Broadway guilty as charged, jurors unanimously agreed to impose a sentence of death, in light of the aggravating circumstances that Broadway had been engaged in the perpetration of an attempted armed robbery, that the victim was a peace officer engaged in her lawful duties, and Broadway knowingly created a risk of death or great bodily harm to more than one person. In accord with the jury's determination, the court sentenced Broadway to death. This court affirmed. State v. Broadway , 96-2659 (La. 10/19/99), 753 So.2d 801.

The evidence presented at trial showed that, on the evening of January 7, 1993, Corporal Betty Smothers was ambushed by two shooters while working off-duty escorting a store manager, Kimien Lee, to make a bank deposit in her police vehicle. Corporal Smothers was shot five times, and she died almost immediately from her wounds. Lee was shot 11 times, but survived. After the shooting stopped, one of the attackers peered into the driver's side window, and Lee made eye contact with him. The next day, Lee underwent hypnosis in the hospital to aid police in preparing a composite sketch of her attacker. The following day, after hypnosis, Lee described her attacker, including his "caramel complexion" and his camouflage jacket with "sleeves extended past his wrists." One year later, Lee picked Broadway out of a photographic lineup.

On January 9, 1993, a confidential informant identified Kevan Brumfield as one of the attackers and Eddie Paul as a person of interest. When questioned, Eddie Paul informed the police that his cousin West Paul, along with Kevan Brumfield and someone he knew only as A.J. or Ray J., were the perpetrators of the instant offense.

The police obtained warrants for Brumfield and West Paul, who were both arrested on January 11, 1993. The police identified Deron Brooks as a possible suspect. Eddie Paul viewed a photograph of Brooks and positively identified him as the man he knew as Ray J. and who had accompanied Brumfield and West Paul. The police obtained a warrant for Brooks and arrested him, but quickly released him upon learning that he had been in police custody at the time of the shooting.

When questioned, West Paul implicated Broadway in the crime. When the police arrested Broadway at his home, he spontaneously stated, "I knew you were coming," and "I didn't shoot the police officer." On the way to the police station, Broadway also spontaneously stated that he had nothing to do with the killing of the police officer and nothing to do with Brumfield, although the police did not mention either the murder or Brumfield.

According to the police, Broadway initially denied any involvement in the crime, but admitted after being shown pictures of Corporal Smothers that he had been involved. He stated that Brumfield and "Smokey" picked him up to rob two women who were going to make a bank deposit, but claimed he did not know one of the women was a police officer. He further stated that they waited in the bushes until the women arrived, and he then ran toward the car and fired six or seven rounds with his pistol. Broadway refused to give a taped statement and claimed that he had not said anything, adding that he would deny anything the officers had written in their notes. Yet, according to the police, the detective read the notes to Broadway who initialed the statement. The police also searched Broadway's home after obtaining consent to search from his mother, and they seized a camouflage jacket similar to the one worn by the assailant as Lee described.

At trial, Lee positively identified Broadway as one of the perpetrators, and Broadway modeled the camouflage jacket for the jury to demonstrate that the sleeves did, in fact, extend over his wrists. Additionally, West Paul admitted to his participation as the driver of the getaway car and confirmed Broadway's participation in the robbery and murder. The defense called several family members and friends who testified that Broadway was at home in their company at the time of the murder.

Broadway testified on his own behalf and denied any involvement in the crime. He testified that Lee was mistaken in her identification or trying to turn suspicion away from herself, and that Paul was lying. He also specifically denied that he made any inculpatory statements to police and claimed that police beat him during his interrogation and gave jurors a detailed account of that attack which included blows struck by the fists of the officers and partial asphyxiation by a plastic bag pulled over his head.

After his conviction and sentence became final, post-conviction proceedings were initiated in 2002, and Broadway initially attempted to recuse the assistant district attorney, specifically, as well as the district attorney's office generally; to recuse the district court judge, and to obtain funds. In each instance, this court denied Broadway's applications seeking review of the rulings of the district court.

In subsequent post-conviction pleadings, Broadway asserted claims of subornation of perjury; suppression of material exculpatory evidence; ineffective assistance of counsel; and juror misconduct. In response to the district court's denial of these claims, this court ordered that the district court conduct evidentiary hearings on the issues of the alleged suppression of material exculpatory evidence; ineffective assistance of counsel at the guilt stage; ineffective assistance of counsel at the penalty phase; and juror misconduct (with respect to the alleged operation of a gambling pool). State v. Broadway , 08-1747 (La. 5/15/09), 8 So.3d 570.

In accordance with this court's order, the district court conducted six days of evidentiary hearings, between July 2010 and February 2014, which included the taking of testimony from several experts and lay witnesses and the introduction of exhibits. On November 17, 2016, the district court rejected all of Broadway's claims, finding them meritless. We have reviewed Broadway's claims and find no reason to disturb the district court's ruling.

First, Broadway fails to show counsel rendered ineffective assistance during the guilt phase of trial. As to counsel's disclosure of defense expert reports, even assuming counsel's decision to disclose these sensitive materials was unreasonable, Broadway fails to show resulting prejudice in a case in which he confessed to his participation in the offense and testified on his own behalf at trial, and thus was subject to rigorous cross-examination of his alibi defense and connections to his co-perpetrators. Cf. Jones v. Stotts , 59 F.3d 143, 146 (10th Cir. 1995) ("Defendant may prevail on ineffective assistance of counsel claim relating to trial strategy ... if he can show counsel's strategy decisions would not be considered sound.").

Broadway also fails to show counsel erred in cross-examining surviving victim Kimien Lee, as counsel's decisions as to which questions to ask on cross-examination generally form a part of trial strategy, see , e.g. , State v. Hoffman , 98-3118, p. 38 (La. 4/11/00), 768 So.2d 542, 577 ; State v. Brooks , 94-2438, pp. 6-7 (La. 10/16/95), 661 So.2d 1333, 1337, and, moreover, Broadway merely presents conclusory allegations. He thus fails to meet his burden of proof that counsel erred or show prejudice. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.2.

As to relator's claims concerning counsel's failure to object, again, these decisions generally form a part of trial strategy see , e.g. , State v. Hoffman , supra ; State v. Brooks , supra , and, moreover, Broadway fails to show how counsel's actions rendered the trial unfair or affected the verdict. Notably, Broadway's claims concerning Paul's testimony on behalf of the state and the introduction of hearsay evidence through the testimony of Detective Bates were considered and rejected on appeal. See State v. Lee , 14-2374, pp. 8-9 (La. 9/18/15), 181 So.3d 631, 638 (an attempt "to re-litigate a claim that has been previously disposed of, by couching it as a post-conviction ineffective assistance of counsel claim, [should be] generally unavailing."); State v. Williams , 613 So.2d 252, 256-57 (La. App. 1 Cir. 1992) ("When the substantive issue that an attorney has not raised has no merit, then the claim that the attorney was ineffective for failing to raise the issue also has no merit."). Additionally, as to the introduction of inadmissible hearsay statements made by Broadway's mother through the testimony of Detective Odom, even assuming counsel unreasonably failed to challenge their admission, the error is harmless as the statements were ultimately admissible at trial as extrinsic evidence, i.e. , prior inconsistent statements used to impeach the credibility of the witness. See La.C.E. art. 607(D)(2).

Lastly, Broadway argues that counsel erred by questioning him on direct examination about his criminal record, specifically his juvenile adjudications. Though a criminal defendant's juvenile record is generally not admissible under La.C.E. art. 609.1(F), Broadway fails to show resulting prejudice in a case in which the state presented overwhelming evidence of his guilt. We find the district court correctly rejected these claims as Broadway fails to show that counsel's deficient actions undermined confidence in the outcome of the proceedings.

In addition, Broadway fails to show that relief is warranted as a result of counsel's claimed failures at the penalty phase. Broadway asserts counsel failed to discover evidence of domestic violence, mental health issues, and extreme poverty he endured as a child and teenager. He points to omitted evidence indicating the effects of frequent evictions and lack of a permanent residence; his childhood exposure to his father's physical abuse of his mother; and the impact his father's murder had on him at the age of 12, i.e. , depression; suicidal attempts; alcohol abuse; substance abuse; and delinquent behavior. In Broadway's view, had this evidence been presented, at least one juror would have voted for a life sentence.

However, even assuming arguendo counsel unreasonably failed to discover and present the omitted mitigating evidence, it is not probable that a jury would find the omitted evidence of Broadway's difficult childhood outweighed the aggravating factors that Broadway and his co-defendant, Kevan Brumfield, committed a cold-bloodied murder of a police officer and attempted to kill and seriously injured a second victim, Kimien Lee, during the course of a planned armed robbery. It is unreasonable to conclude that the penalty phase outcome would have been different even with the omitted evidence of Broadway's difficult childhood, and Broadway shows no district court error.

Next, Broadway claims the state suppressed exculpatory or impeachment evidence in violation of its duty under Brady v. Maryland , 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963). Broadway argues the state suppressed evidence of two other suspects, Gregory Durden and Anthony Ray Wright, and the videotape of Kimien Lee's hypnosis session.

Specifically, Broadway claims the state suppressed investigative materials referencing Durden and Wright as initial suspects. Broadway emphasizes the state's failure to turn over documents referencing Durden's failure of a polygraph test; his statements about his knowledge of the Piggly Wiggly's nightly deposit schedules and procedures; and the report of a fellow Piggly Wiggly employee of his suspicious behavior on the night of the crime. As to Wright, Broadway points to a police report detailing a traffic stop of Wright on January 11, 1993, when he was driving a 1976 blue Oldsmobile. The police took photos of his face; the tire pattern; and the exterior of his vehicle; they seized a Lorcin .380 caliber automatic pistol; and took a statement from a witness who observed a vehicle similar to Wright's speeding away from the Circle K parking lot around the time of the crime. Broadway points out that Wright had a similar appearance to Lee's description of the perpetrator, and Wright had an extensive criminal history.

As a general matter, however, there exists no general duty to disclose false leads. Moore v. Illinois , 408 U.S. 786, 795, 92 S.Ct. 2562, 2568, 33 L.Ed.2d 706 (1972) ; State v. Nix , 327 So.2d 301, 320 (La. 1975). Moreover, even assuming these undisclosed investigative materials had any exculpatory value, relator fails to show that this withheld evidence rises to a level capable of lessening confidence in the verdict in a case in which Broadway confessed to his participation in the offense, corroborating Lee's identification of him. Kyles , 514 U.S. at 434, 115 S.Ct. at 1566. No error is shown.

Next, as to the suppression of the videotaped hypnosis session with Lee, Broadway asserts that the hypnosis video contained material impeachment evidence relating to Lee's identification of her attacker, including inconsistent statements as to her attacker's eyes and her inability to view the attacker's face. Broadway argues that Lee's identification testimony was crucial to the case against him, thus the suppression of this impeachment evidence undermines the verdict.

Though Lee, the surviving victim, was a critical state witness and the video potentially carried impeachment value, on direct review, this court found no resulting prejudice from the court's denial of Broadway's motion to produce the video because the "descriptions [Lee] provided during and after hypnosis were essentially similar." Broadway , 96-2659, pp. 12-13, 753 So.2d at 811-12. The inconsistencies Broadway now points to deal only with minor variations in Lee's descriptions, and he fails to show the exculpatory value of the tape and therefore cannot show a violation of Brady .

Finally, Broadway shows no basis for this court's intervention as to his juror misconduct allegations of a gambling pool. The United States Supreme Court has held that the Sixth Amendment forbids a jury from being exposed to external influences during its deliberations. See Parker v. Gladden , 385 U.S. 363, 364, 87 S.Ct. 468, 470, 17 L.Ed.2d 420 (1966) ("the evidence developed against a defendant shall come from the witness stand in a public courtroom where there is full judicial protection of the defendant's right of confrontation, of cross-examination, and of counsel" (internal quotation marks omitted) ); Turner v. Louisiana , 379 U.S. 466, 472, 85 S.Ct. 546, 549, 13 L.Ed.2d 424 (1965) ("The requirement that a jury's verdict 'must be based upon the evidence developed at the trial' goes to the fundamental integrity of all that is embraced in the constitutional concept of trial by jury."); Remmer v. United States , 347 U.S. 227, 229, 74 S.Ct. 450, 451, 98 L.Ed. 654 (1954) ("private communication, contact, or tampering" with the jury is presumptively prejudicial); Mattox v. United States , 146 U.S. 140, 149, 13 S.Ct. 50, 53, 36 L.Ed. 917 (1892) ("in capital cases [...] the jury should pass upon the case free from external causes tending to disturb the exercise of deliberated and unbiased judgment"). Jurisprudence from this court is to the same effect. See , e.g. , State v. Duplissey , 550 So.2d 590 (La. 1989) ; State v. Sinegal , 393 So.2d 684 (La. 1981) ; State v. Marchand , 362 So.2d 1090 (La. 1978).

Based upon a review of the juror testimony given at the evidentiary hearing, the alternate juror and the jury foreperson testified to the existence of a single betting pool, and regardless of whether this pool concerned the end date of trial, or specifically the date when the case would be handed over to the jury, i.e. , before deliberations, Broadway fails to show that this pool related in any way to the merits of the case or the outcome of either phase of trial. Mrs. Clavier, the alternate juror called below as a defense witness, did not participate in the deliberations of either phase at trial, and the foreperson, Mr. Brumley, called below as a state witness, testified that the gambling pool had nothing to do with the deliberations. Thus, Broadway fails to show that this bet influenced the jury in returning the verdicts. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.2. Accordingly, the claim fails.

Broadway has now fully litigated his application for state post-conviction relief. 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. Notably, the Legislature in 2013 La. Acts 251 amended that article to make the procedural bars against successive filings mandatory. Broadway's claims have now been fully litigated in accord with La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.6, and this denial is final.

Hereafter, unless Broadway can show that one of the narrow exceptions authorizing the filing of a successive application applies, he has exhausted his right to state collateral review. The district court is ordered to record a minute entry consistent with this per curiam.

CRICHTON, J., concurs in part and dissents in part and assigns reasons.

CRICHTON, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part.

The State presented overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt here, and I agree with the per curiam that the majority of defendant's claims lack merit. However, I disagree with the per curiam as to one claim: defendant's assertion that he received ineffective assistance of counsel in the penalty phase. Considering the performance by defense counsel, I conclude that this claim warrants more thorough examination, particularly in light of State v. Hamilton , 92-2639, (La. 7/1/97), 699 So.2d 29. Rather than summarily denying defendant's claim at this juncture, I would grant and docket defendant's application for the limited purpose of determining whether he received ineffective assistance of counsel in the penalty phase of this capital trial.

      State v. Broadway , 07-1325 (La. 10/5/07), 964 So.2d 940 ; State v. Broadway , 05-2400 (La. 4/28/06), 927 So.2d 296 ; State v. Broadway , 04-1851 (La. 12/17/04), 888 So.2d 864 ; State v. Broadway , 03-1520 (La. 3/12/04), 869 So.2d 815 ; State v. Broadway , 01-3366 (La. 4/10/02), 812 So.2d 658.

      This court left intact the district court's denial of claims concerning subornation of perjury.

      Under the standard for ineffective assistance of counsel set out in Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), adopted by this court in State v. Washington , 491 So.2d 1337, 1339 (La. 1986), a reviewing court must reverse a conviction if the defendant establishes (1) 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.

      A defendant at the penalty phase of a capital trial is entitled to the assistance of a reasonably competent attorney acting as a diligent, conscientious advocate for his life, State v. Fuller , 454 So.2d 119, 124 (La. 1984) ; State v. Berry , 430 So.2d 1005, 1007 (La. 1983) ; State v. Myles , 389 So.2d 12, 28 (La. 1980) (on reh'g); see also Burger v. Kemp , 483 U.S. 776, 788-89, 107 S.Ct. 3114, 3122-26, 97 L.Ed.2d 638 (1987), and counsel's dereliction may warrant relief even if the defendant has been convicted of a particularly egregious crime. See , e.g. , Williams v. Taylor , 529 U.S. 362, 368, 120 S.Ct. 1495, 1500, 146 L.Ed.2d 389 (2000) (committed two assaults on elderly women, leaving one in a persistent vegetative state) and Rompilla v. Beard , 545 U.S. 374, 377, 125 S.Ct. 2456, 2460, 162 L.Ed.2d 360 (2005) (stabbed victim repeatedly before setting fire to his body). To show ineffectiveness as a result of counsel's failure to present mitigating evidence, a petitioner must establish that: (1) counsel failed to undertake "a reasonable investigation [which] would have uncovered mitigating evidence;" and (2) failing to put on the available mitigating evidence "was not a tactical decision but reflects a failure by counsel to advocate for his client's cause;" (3) which caused "actual prejudice." State v. Hamilton , 92-2639, p. 6 (La. 7/1/97), 699 So.2d 29, 32 (citing State v. Brooks , supra ; State v. Sanders , 93-0001 (La. 11/30/94), 648 So.2d 1272 ).

      In Brady v. Maryland , 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), the Supreme Court held that the suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to the accused after receiving a request for it violates a defendant's due process rights where the evidence is material either to guilt or punishment, without regard to the good or bad faith of the prosecution. Id. , 373 U.S. at 87, 83 S.Ct. at 1196-97. The Brady rule encompasses evidence which impeaches the testimony of a witness when the reliability or credibility of that witness may determine guilt or innocence. United States v. Bagley , 473 U.S. 667, 676, 105 S.Ct. 3375, 3380, 87 L.Ed.2d 481 (1985) ; Giglio v. United States , 405 U.S. 150, 154, 92 S.Ct. 763, 756, 31 L.Ed.2d 104 (1972) ; State v. Knapper , 579 So.2d 956, 959 (La. 1991). Pursuant to Brady and its progeny, a prosecutor does not breach his constitutional duty to disclose favorable evidence "unless the omission is of sufficient significance to result in the denial of the defendant's right to a fair trial." United States v. Agurs , 427 U.S. 97, 112, 96 S.Ct. 2392, 2400, 49 L.Ed.2d 342 (1976) ; State v. Willie , 410 So.2d 1019, 1030 (La. 1982). For purposes of Brady's due process rule, a reviewing court determining materiality must ascertain
      not whether the defendant would more likely than not have received a different verdict with the evidence, but whether in its absence he received a fair trial, understood as a trial resulting in a verdict worthy of confidence.
      Kyles v. Whitley , 514 U.S. 419, 434, 115 S.Ct. 1555, 1566, 131 L.Ed.2d 490 (1995) (citing Bagley , 473 U.S. at 678, 105 S.Ct. at 3381 ); see also State v. Strickland , 94-0025, p. 38 (La. 11/1/96), 683 So.2d 218, 234 (quoting State v. Marshall , 81-3115, pp. 13-15 (La. 9/5/95), 660 So.2d 819, 825 (quoting Kyles ) ). Thus, the reviewing court does not put the material to an outcome-determinative test in which it weighs the probabilities that the petitioner would have obtained an acquittal at trial or might do so at a second trial. Instead, a Brady violation occurs when the "evidentiary suppression 'undermines confidence in the outcome of the trial.' " Kyles , 514 U.S. at 434, 115 S.Ct. at 1566 (quoting Bagley , 473 U.S. at 678, 105 S.Ct. at 3381 ).

      To show that counsel rendered ineffective assistance at the penalty phase, relator must meet the standard set out by this court in State v. Hamilton , 92-2639, p. 6 (La. 7/1/97), 699 So.2d 29, 32, and must show that counsel (1) failed to undertake a reasonable investigation which would have uncovered mitigating evidence; (2) that failing to put on available mitigating evidence was not a reasonable strategic decision; and (3) that it resulted in actual prejudice. Given counsel's tepid performance and apparently minimal investigation, I believe the claim of ineffective assistance in the penalty phase merits close scrutiny, particularly with regard to the question of prejudice.


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: PER CURIAM:

license: Public Domain

text:
    STATE EX REL. Joseph Lloyd WARD v. STATE of Louisiana
    No. 2017-KH-0978
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 21, 2018
    ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF RAPIDES
   PER CURIAM:

Writ granted in part. The court of appeal is ordered to allow relator a reasonable amount of time to supplement his application with the appropriate supporting documentation and to consider his pro se filing on the merits. Cf. State ex rel. Johnson v. Maggio , 440 So.2d 1336, 1337 (La. 1983) (pro se petitioner "is not to be denied access to the courts for review of his case on the merits by the overzealous application of form and pleading requirements or hyper-technical interpretations of court rules.").

GUIDRY, J., would deny.


text:
    STATE EX REL. Antonio JENKINS v. STATE of Louisiana
    No. 17-KH-0844
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 21, 2018
    ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE NINETEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF EAST BATON ROUGE
   PER CURIAM:

Denied. Relator fails to show that he received ineffective assistance of counsel under the standard of Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). As to his 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 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. Alvin BRATTON v. STATE of Louisiana
    No. 17-KH-0838
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 21, 2018
    ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF WEST FELICIANA
   PER CURIAM:

Denied. The 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. The application is also repetitive. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4.

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.

CRICHTON, J., recused.


text:
    STATE EX REL. Irving MORRIS v. STATE of Louisiana
    No. 17-KH-0764
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 21, 2018
    ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE TWENTY-SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF WASHINGTON
   PER CURIAM:

Denied. Relator does not identify an illegal term in his sentences, 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 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:
    IN RE: Jules B. LEBLANC III
    NO. 2018-OB-1523
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 21, 2018
    ORDER
   Considering the Joint Petition for Transfer to Disability Inactive Status,

IT IS ORDERED that Jules B. LeBlanc III, Louisiana Bar Roll number 8201, be and he hereby is transferred to disability inactive status. All disciplinary proceedings against respondent shall be deferred until such time as he resumes active status.

Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 26(E), this order shall be effective immediately.


author: PER CURIAM

text:
    IN RE: Phyllis SOUTHALL
    NO. 2018-B-1401
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 21, 2018
    ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING
   PER CURIAM

The Office of Disciplinary Counsel ("ODC") commenced an investigation into allegations that respondent neglected a legal matter, failed to communicate with a client, failed to place advanced costs into a client trust account, and failed to refund unearned fees. Respondent subsequently failed to cooperate with the ODC in its investigation. This misconduct occurred in the same general time frame as the misconduct forming the basis of respondent's earlier disciplinary matter, wherein she was suspended from the practice of law for three years. Respondent and the ODC submitted a joint petition for consent discipline. Having reviewed the petition,

IT IS ORDERED that the Petition for Consent Discipline be accepted and that Phyllis Southall, Louisiana Bar Roll number 18693, be adjudged guilty of additional violations which warrant discipline and which may be considered in the event she applies for reinstatement from her suspension in In re: Southall , 14-2441 (La. 3/17/15), 165 So.3d 894, after becoming eligible to do so.

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


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Robert CEASAR
    No. 18-KH-0536
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 21, 2018
    ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF ORLEANS
   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 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. Emmitt CHARLES
    No. 17-KP-1828
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 21, 2018
    ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF ORLEANS
   PER CURIAM:

Denied. Relator fails to show he was denied the effective assistance of counsel during plea negotiations under the standard of Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). 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 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. Rayne WILLIAMS
    No. 2017-K-1816
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 21, 2018
    ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE FOURTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEAL, PARISH OF ORLEANS
   PER CURIAM:

Writ granted. The decision of the court of appeal is reversed and the case is returned to the court of appeal for a decision on the pretermitted assignment of error. When issues are raised on appeal both as to the sufficiency of the evidence and as to one or more trial errors, the reviewing court should first determine the sufficiency of the evidence. State v. Hearold , 603 So.2d 731, 734 (La. 1992). After the court of appeal decides the issue of the sufficiency of the evidence to support defendant's conviction, it should revisit whether it is necessary to remand to the trial court to enable the resolution of defendant's remaining claim, i.e. , that he did not validly waive his right to a jury trial.

REVERSED AND REMANDED


text:
    STATE EX REL. Kenneth BELL, Sr. v. STATE of Louisiana
    No. 2017-KH-1428
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 21, 2018
    ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF RAPIDES
   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 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. Eddie Lee JACKSON v. STATE of Louisiana
    No. 2017-KH-1135
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 21, 2018
    ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF CADDO
   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.

CRICHTON, J., recused.


text:
    STATE EX REL. KHANH LE v. STATE of Louisiana
    No. 2017-KH-1007
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 21, 2018
    ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE TWENTY-FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF JEFFERSON
   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. Yutico BRILEY v. STATE of Louisiana
    No. 2017-KH-0982
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 21, 2018
    ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF ORLEANS
   PER CURIAM:

Denied. Relator fails to show that he received ineffective assistance of counsel under the standard of Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).

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: PER CURIAM: Hughes, J., concurring.

text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Chadwick MCGHEE
    No. 2017-KO-1951
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 21, 2018
    ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE THIRD CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEAL, PARISH OF AVOYELLES
   PER CURIAM:

Writ granted. Defendant, charged with second degree kidnapping, was found guilty of simple kidnapping. This court determined in State v. Price , 17-K-0520 (La. 6/27/18), 250 So.3d 230, that guilty of simple kidnapping is not responsive to a charge of second degree kidnapping. In addition, the return of a nonresponsive verdict constitutes an error patent reviewable even in the absence of a defense objection. La.C.Cr.P. 920 ; State v. Mayeux , 498 So.2d 701, 703 (La. 1986) ; State v. Thibodeaux , 380 So.2d 59 (La. 1980) ; State v. Vincent , 387 So.2d 1097 (La. 1980). Therefore, we grant the application to remand to the court of appeal to reconsider its affirmance of defendant's conviction in light of State v. Price .

REMANDED

Hughes, J., concurring.

I concur. In Price , because the jury's return of the non-responsive verdict was an implicit acquittal of the crime charged, we remanded to enter a post-verdict judgment of acquittal.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Teddy CHESTER
    NO. 2018-KK-1565
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 28, 2018
    On Supervisory Writs to the Twenty-Fourth Judicial District Court, Parish of Jefferson
   PER CURIAM

Writ granted; stay lifted.

The defendant seeks to introduce evidence of diminished capacity, intellectual disability, and/or mental defect for the limited purpose of challenging the voluntariness of a confession. In State v. Doyle , 2011-597p. 1 (La. 3/23/11), 56 So.3d 948, 949 we ruled that a "defendant may introduce evidence of mental retardation, defect, and/or diminished capacity at the guilt stage of trial as part of the circumstances surrounding the making of a confession for jurors to consider in determining the weight or probative value given the statement." This limited purpose stands in contrast to introducing such evidence on the issue of guilt or innocence. See generally , La. C.Cr.P. art. 651 ("When a defendant is tried upon a plea of 'not guilty,' evidence of insanity or mental defect at the time of the offense shall not be admissible."). Thus, the district court abused its discretion in excluding evidence of defendant's diminished capacity, intellectual disability, and/or mental defect for the limited purpose of challenging the voluntariness of any confessions. On remand, the district court may consider appropriate instructions to clarify the limited purpose for which such evidence is to be introduced and considered.

Clark, J., would deny.

Guidry J. & Crichton, J., recused.


text:
    Jacob L. WYNNE v. The KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY
    NO. 2018-CC-677
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 21, 2018
    ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEAL, SECOND CIRCUIT, PARISH OF CADDO
   PER CURIAM

Granted. We find the court of appeal erred in exercising its supervisory jurisdiction to review the partial summary judgment, as the requirements of Herlitz Const. Co. v. Hotel Investors , 396 So.2d 878 (La. 1981), are not satisfied. Accordingly, the judgment of the court of appeal is vacated and set aside, and the case is remanded to the district court for further proceedings.

Hughes, J., would deny the writ.

GENOVESE, J., would deny.


text:
    IN RE MEDICAL REVIEW PANEL OF Mariah BENOIT
    NO. 2018-CC-0761
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 21, 2018
    Denied.


author: HUGHES, J., would grant.

text:
    Kevin DUHE v. ST. JOHN THE BAPTIST PARISH SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT änd Sheriff Wayne Jones
    NO. 2018-C-0764
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 21, 2018
    Denied.
   HUGHES, J., would grant.


author: GUIDRY, J., recused.

text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Teddy CHESTER
    NO. 2018-KK-1535
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 18, 2018
    Denied.
   GUIDRY, J., recused.

CRICHTON, J., recused.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Teddy CHESTER
    NO. 2018-KK-1536
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 18, 2018
    Denied.
   GUIDRY, J., recused.

HUGHES, J., would grant.

CRICHTON, J., recused.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Alphonse Carl TRAHAN, Jr.
    NO. 2018-KK-0765
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 21, 2018
    Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana, BY AND THROUGH its Attorney General James CALDWELL v. ASTRA ZENECA AB, AstraZeneca LP, AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP, and Äkitbolaget Hassle
    NO. 2018-00766
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 21, 2018
    Denied.


text:
    MAYEHAUL TRUCKING, LLC, et al. v. SASOL CHEMICALS, LLC, et al.
    Superior Trucking, LLC, et al. v. Sasol Chemicals, LLC, et al.
    NO. 2018-CC-0775
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 21, 2018
    Denied.
   HUGHES, J., would grant.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana, BY AND THROUGH its Attorney General James CALDWELL v. SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CORPORATION d/b/a GlaxoSmithKline PLC
    NO. 2018-CC-0894
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 21, 2018.
    Denied.


text:
    Deon DANNA v. The RITZ-CARLTON HOTEL CO., LLC, et al.
    NO. 2018-CC-0911
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 21, 2018
    Denied.


text:
    Jose Maria Rivera ROSLES v. MICHELIN NORTH AMERICA, INC., et al.
    NO. 2018-CC-0813
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 21, 2018
    Granted and remanded to the court of appeal for briefing, argument and full opinion.
    WEIMER, J., would grant and docket.


text:
    Jose Maria Rivera ROSALES v. MICHELIN NORTH AMERICA, INC., et al.
    NO. 2018-CC-0825
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 21, 2018
    Granted and remanded to the court of appeal for briefing, argument and full opinion.
    WEIMER, J., would grant and docket.


text:
    PONTCHARTRAIN NATURAL GAS SYSTEM, k/d/s Promix, L.L.C., and Acadian Gas Pipeline System v. TEXAS BRINE COMPANY, LLC
    NO. 2018-CC-1121
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 21, 2018
    Denied.


text:
    IN RE: Appeal of the DECISION OF the DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL
    NO. 2018-INT-1489 NO. 2018-OB-1367
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 21, 2018
    Granted for the sole purpose of transferring the matter to the Office of the Disciplinary Counsel for review by the Chief Disciplinary Counsel. See Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 11(A).


text:
    CROSSTEX ENERGY SERVICES, LP, Cross Tex Lig, LLC, and Crosstex Processing Services, LLC v. TEXAS BRINE COMPANY, LLC, et al.
    NO. 2018-CC-1122
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 21, 2018
    Denied.


text:
    PONTCHARTRAIN NATURAL GAS SYSTEM, k/d/s Promix, L.L.C., and Acadian Gas Pipeline System v. TEXAS BRINE COMPANY, LLC
    NO. 2018-CC-1123
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 21, 2018
    Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Justin D. GRANIER
    NO. 2018-KP-0690
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 21, 2018
    Rehearing denied.


text:
    FLORIDA GAS TRANSMISSION COMPANY, LLC v. TEXAS BRINE COMPANY, LLC
    NO. 2018-CC-1220
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 21, 2018
    Denied.


text:
    STATE EX REL. Gregory SKIPPER v. STATE of Louisiana
    NO. 2017-KH-0901
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 21, 2018
    WRIT NOT CONSIDERED. See La.S.Ct.R. X § 4; La.S.Ct.R. X § 5(a).


author: CRICHTON, J., recused.

text:
    STATE EX REL. Shawn Fitzgerald KENNEDY v. STATE of Louisiana
    NO. 2017-KH-1232
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 21, 2018
    WRIT NOT CONSIDERED. Untimely filed pursuant to La.S.Ct.R. X § 5.
   CRICHTON, J., recused.


text:
    STATE EX REL. Charles SPEARS v. STATE of Louisiana
    NO. 2017-KH-0854
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 21, 2018
    WRIT NOT CONSIDERED. Petitioner has not demonstrated that petitioner 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. Clifford C. ABSHIRE, III v. STATE of Louisiana
    NO. 2017-KH-0983
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 21, 2018
    WRIT NOT CONSIDERED. Petitioner has not demonstrated that he sought review in the court of appeal 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:
    John BUNIFF v. STATE of Louisiana
    NO. 2017-KP-1122
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 21, 2018
    Not considered. Not timely filed. See La.S.Ct. Rule X, § 5.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana, BY AND THROUGH its Attorney General James CALDWELL v. ASTRAZENECA AB, AstraZeneca LP, AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP, and Akitbolaget Hassle
    NO. 2018-C-0758
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 21, 2018
    Denied.


text:
    Carl ENGLAND v. LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONS
    NO. 2017-CI-1006
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 21, 2018
    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. Kenton Dawne GREEN v. STATE of Louisiana
    NO. 2017-KH-1160
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 21, 2018
    WRIT NOT CONSIDERED. Untimely filed pursuant to La.S.Ct.R. X § 5.


text:
    CRESCENT MATERIALS SERVICES, INC. v. Jan QUATROY, Personally and as Executrix for the Succession of Cyril Quatroy
    NO. 2018-CC-0772
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 21, 2018
    Denied.


text:
    Lillie LOVE v. CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S LONDON, et al.
    NO. 2018-C-0806
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 21, 2018
    Denied.


text:
    PONTCHARTRAIN NATURAL GAS, SYSTEM, k/d/s/ Promix, LLC, and Acadian Gas Pipeline System v. TEXAS BRINE COMPANY, LLC
    NO. 2018-CC-0809
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 21, 2018
    Denied.


text:
    STATE EX REL. Edward PROFIT v. STATE of Louisiana
    NO. 2017-KH-1098
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 21, 2018
    WRIT NOT CONSIDERED. Untimely filed pursuant to La.S.Ct.R. X § 5.


text:
    Ruby Karen TERRY, et al. v. COMBRE ENTERPRISES, INC. et al.
    NO. 2018-CC-0811
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 21, 2018
    Denied.


text:
    PONTCHARTRAIN NATURAL GAS SYSTEM, k/d/s Promix, L.L.C., and Acadian Gas Pipeline System v. TEXAS BRINE COMPANY, LLC
    NO. 2018-CC-0814
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 21, 2018
    Denied.


text:
    Gustave J. LABARRE, Jr., et al. v. TEXAS BRINE COMPANY, LLC and Georgia Gulp Chemical & Vinyls, LLC
    NO. 2018-CC-0815
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 21, 2018
    Denied.
   HUGHES, J., would grant.


author: GENOVESE, J., would grant.

text:
    Deon DANNA v. The RITZ-CARLTON HOTEL COMPANY, L.L.C., Marriott International, Inc., Russell Miller and Zachary Curry
    NO. 2018-CC-0818
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 21, 2018
    Denied.
   GENOVESE, J., would grant.


text:
    Kenny GUICE, Anthony Fernandez, Chad Morgan, Kevin Morgan, Larry James Hebert, Wayne Tureai, and Stacy Tureau Creasy Wife of/and Terry Creasy v. VULCAN CHEMICALS, a Business Group of Vulcan Materials Company, Vulcan Chemicals Investments, L.L.C., and Vulcan Chlorakali, L.L.C., Industrial Coatings Contractors, Inc., and International Maintenance Corporation
    NO. 2018-C-0821
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 21, 2018
    Denied.


text:
    Robert G. HARVEY, Sr. v. Allen J. KROUSE, III
    NO. 2018-C-0823
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 21, 2018
    Denied.


text:
    CITY OF YOUNGSVILLE v. C.H. FENSTERMAKER & ASSOCIATES, L.L.C.
    NO. 2018-00824
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 21, 2018
    Denied.
   GENOVESE, J., would grant.


text:
    WOOTAN & SAUNDERS, a Professional Corporation v. Glenn E. DIAZ
    NO. 2018-C-0827
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 21, 2018
    Denied.


text:
    Christopher BLANCHARD v. Demetrius J. HICKS, et al.
    NO. 2018-C-0829
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 21, 2018
    Denied.


text:
    STATE EX REL. Willie WILLIAMS v. STATE of Louisiana
    NO. 2017-KH-1070
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 21, 2018
    WRIT NOT CONSIDERED. Untimely filed pursuant to La.S.Ct.R. X §.5.


text:
    Alvin BRATTON v. LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONS
    NO. 2018-CI-0487
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 21, 2018
    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).
   CRICHTON, J., recused.


author: WEIMER, J., would grant.

text:
    Norma Bartholomew MAHLER; et al. v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY
    NO. 2018-CC-0832
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 21, 2018
    Denied.
   WEIMER, J., would grant.


author: JOHNSON, C.J., recused.

text:
    Lionel BAILEY v. Michael HARRISON
    NO. 2018-OC-0834
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 21, 2018
    Denied.
   JOHNSON, C.J., recused.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Oliver VENTRY
    NO. 2018-KH-0842
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 21, 2018
    WRIT NOT CONSIDERED. Petitioner has not demonstrated that petitioner 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:
    Bessie J. HALL v. LOUISIANA STATE EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM
    NO. 2018-C-0836
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 21, 2018
    Denied.


text:
    STATE EX REL. Jonathan JONES v. STATE of Louisiana
    NO. 2017-KH-1216
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 21, 2018
    WRIT NOT CONSIDERED. Untimely filed pursuant to La.S.Ct.R. X § 5.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Anthony D. GANT
    NO. 2018-KH-0838
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 21, 2018
    WRIT NOT CONSIDERED. Petitioner has not demonstrated that petitioner 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 of Louisiana v. Adam DAVIS, Jr.
    NO. 2018-KH-0839
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 21, 2018
    WRIT NOT CONSIDERED. Petitioner has not demonstrated that petitioner 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 of Louisiana v. Jorge RODRIGUEZ
    NO. 2018-KH-0857
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 21, 2018
    WRIT NOT CONSIDERED. Untimely filed pursuant to La.S.Ct.R. X § 5.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Richard GALLEGOS
    NO. 2018-KH-0923
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 21, 2018
    WRIT NOT CONSIDERED. Petitioner has not demonstrated that petitioner sought review in the court(s) below before filing in this Court nor shown the "extraordinary circumstances" that would justify bypassing that level of review. La.S.Ct.R. X § 5(b).


author: JOHNSON, C.J., would grant.

text:
    Martin VAN BUREN, Jr. and Alvoren Van Buren v. Claude B. MINOR, Jr., M.D.
    NO. 2018-C-0768
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 21, 2018
    Denied.
   JOHNSON, C.J., would grant.

GENOVESE, J., would grant.


text:
    STATE EX REL. Kevin D. SMITH v. STATE of Louisiana
    NO. 2017-KH-1073
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 21, 2018
    WRIT NOT CONSIDERED. Untimely filed pursuant to La.S.Ct.R. X § 5.


text:
    Randall VINCENT and Karen Vincent v. CITY OF IOWA
    NO. 2018-C-0750
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 21, 2018
    Denied.


text:
    Deon DANNA v. The RITZ-CARLTON HOTEL CO., LLC., et al.
    NO. 2018-CC-0773
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 21, 2018
    Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Sean Michael VINES
    No. 2017-KP-0678
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 21, 2018
    Reconsideration denied.
   HUGHES, J., would grant.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Jarret Jean MCCASLAND
    NO. 2017-K-0823
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 21, 2018
    Reconsideration denied.
    JOHNSON, C J., would grant reconsideration and consider the merits.
    HUGHES, J., would grant reconsideration and consider the merits.
    CRICHTON, J., would grant reconsideration and consider the merits.


author: WEIMER, J., recused.

text:
    STATE EX REL. Christopher CHERAMIE v. STATE of Louisiana
    NO. 2017-KH-0990
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 21, 2018
    Denied.
   WEIMER, J., recused.


text:
    STATE EX REL. Bobby D. KIMBLE v. STATE of Louisiana
    NO. 2017-KH-0995
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 21, 2018
    Denied. Relator has previously exhausted his right to state collateral review.
    See State ex rel. Kimble v. State, 16-0433 (La. 8/4/17), 223 So.3d 513.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Mister DONAHUE
    NO. 2017-KP-0999
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 21, 2018
    Denied.


text:
    STATE EX REL. Robert POOLER v. STATE of Louisiana
    NO. 2017-KH-1206
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 21, 2018
    Denied.


text:
    Bridget JACKSON v. Troylond M. WISE, Acme Truck Line, Inc., and First Guard Insurance Company
    NO. 2018-C-0785
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 21, 2018
    Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Alvin DAVIS, Jr.
    NO. 2017-K-1440
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 21, 2018
    Not considered. See La.S.Ct. Rule IX, § 6.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Tony J. TABOR
    No. 2018-KH-0161
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 21, 2018
    Reconsideration denied.
   WEIMER, J., recused.


text:
    STATE EX REL. Darnell LEWIS v. STATE of Louisiana
    NO. 2017-KH-0931
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 21, 2018
    Denied.


text:
    STATE EX REL. Joshua HOBSON v. STATE of Louisiana
    NO. 2017-KH-0949
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 21, 2018
    Denied.
   JOHNSON, C.J., would grant.

HUGHES, J., would grant.


text:
    STATE EX REL. Ryan POREE v. STATE of Louisiana
    NO. 2017-KH-1033
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 21, 2018
    Denied.


text:
    STATE EX REL. John E. SPELLMAN v. STATE of Louisiana
    NO. 2017-KH-1141
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 21, 2018
    Denied. Relator has previously exhausted his right to state collateral review. See; State ex rel. Spellman v. State, 15-1255 (La. 1/15/16), 182 So.3d 963.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Kenneth WHITMORE
    NO. 2017-KP-1341
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 21, 2018
    Denied.


text:
    Victoria DICKERSON v. N.I.S. FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., et al.
    NO. 2018-CC-0749
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 21, 2018
    Denied.


text:
    Patricia Ashley BOWEN v. STATE of Louisiana, EX REL. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HOSPITALS, Earl K. Long Medical Center; Louisiana State University Agricultural and Mechanical College, through LSU Health Care Services Division, Manager of Earl K. Long and Stratos Elevator Company and Starnet Insurance Company; and York Risk Services Group, and Fara, A York Risk Service Company
    NO. 2018-C-0771
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 21, 2018
    Denied.
   JOHNSON, C.J., would grant.

HUGHES, J., would grant.

GENOVESE, J., would grant.


text:
    In the MATTER OF Dr. Eric R. CERWONKA, Psy.D
    NO. 2018-C-0760
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 21, 2018
    Denied.


text:
    ST. BERNARD PORT, HARBOR & TERMINAL DISTRICT v. VIOLET DOCK PORT, INC., LLC
    St. Bernard Port, Harbor & Terminal District v. Violet Dock Port, Inc., L.L.C.
    NO. 2018-C-0826
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 21, 2018
    Denied.


text:
    STATE EX REL. Robert CEASAR v. STATE of Louisiana
    NO. 2017-KH-0979
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 21, 2018
    Denied.


text:
    STATE EX REL. John BURKS, III v. STATE of Louisiana
    NO. 2017-KH-0961
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 28, 2018
    ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE 19th JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT FOR THE PARISH OF EAST BATON ROUGE
    Denied.
    HUGHES, J., would grant to remand for an evidentiary hearing on the Counterman claim.


text:
    CREEKSTONE JUBAN I, LLC v. XL INSURANCE AMERICA, INC.
    NO. 2018-CC-0748
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 28, 2018
    Granted. See Order Attached.
    On Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs Twenty-First Judicial District Court, Parish of Livingston, No. 154,463, Division C; Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2017 CW 1223.
    And, whereas, the Court has this date, pursuant to Article 5, Section 5, of the Constitution of Louisiana, made and issued the following order, to wit-"It is ordered that the writ of review issue; that the District Court and the Court of Appeal send up the record in Duplicate of the case; and that counsel for all parties be notified."
    Now, therefore, the said District Court and the Court of Appeal is hereby commanded, in the name of the State of Louisiana and of this Honorable Court, to send up forthwith to this Court, in accordance with Supreme Court Rule 1, at the City of New Orleans, the record in duplicate of the above-entitled case.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Teddy CHESTER
    NO. 2018-KK-1564
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 21, 2018
    Denied.
   GUIDRY, J., recused.

CRICHTON, J., recused.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Melvin MIGUEL
    NO. 2018-KK-0711
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 28, 2018
    On Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Criminal District Court, Parish of Orleans, No. 538-436, Division F; Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2018-K-0233.
    And, whereas, the Court has this date, pursuant to Article 5, Section 5, of the Constitution of Louisiana, made and issued the following order, to wit-"It is ordered that the writ of review issue; that the District Court and the Court of Appeal send up the record in Duplicate of the case; and that counsel for all parties be notified."
    Now, therefore, the said District Court and the Court of Appeal is hereby commanded, in the name of the State of Louisiana and of this Honorable Court, to send up forthwith to this Court, in accordance with Supreme Court Rule 1, at the City of New Orleans, the record in duplicate of the above-entitled case.


text:
    CROSSTEX ENERGY SERVICES, LP; Crosstex Lig, LLC; and Crosstex Processing Services, LLC v. TEXAS BRINE COMPANY, LLC; Zurich American Insurance Company; and American Guarantee and Liability Insurance Company
    NO. 2018-C-0881
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 28, 2018
    Denied.
   HUGHES, J., would grant.


text:
    STATE EX REL. Leroy WILSON aka L.W. v. STATE of Louisiana
    NO. 2017-KH-1404
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 28, 2018
    WRIT NOT CONSIDERED. Untimely filed pursuant to La.S.Ct.R. X § 5.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Nicholas REVISH
    NO. 2018-KH-1182
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 28, 2018
    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 of Louisiana v. George H. PONSELL, Jr.
    NO. 2018-KH-1189
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 28, 2018
    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:
    The INDEPENDENT WEEKLY, LLC v. Dale N. ATKINS, Clerk of Court
    NO. 2018-C-0633
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 28, 2018
    Denied.
   WEIMER, J., would grant.


text:
    STATE EX REL. Richard LAY v. STATE of Louisiana
    NO. 2017-KH-0738
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 28, 2018
    Denied. Relator has previously exhausted his right to state collateral review. See State ex rel. Lay v. State, 14-2549 (La. 11/6/15), 181 So.3d 693.
   WEIMER, J., recused.


text:
    STATE EX REL. Gerald GRANT v. STATE of Louisiana
    NO. 2017-KH-0923
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 28, 2018
    Denied.


text:
    STATE EX REL. Richard LAY v. STATE of Louisiana
    NO. 2017-KH-0736
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 28, 2018
    Denied.
   WEIMER, J., recused.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana IN the INTEREST OF T.B.
    NO. 2017-CK-2117
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 28, 2018
    Denied.


text:
    Kimberly L. ROBINSON, Secretary of Department of Revenue, State of Louisiana v. MANTLE OIL & GAS, LLC
    NO. 2018-C-0852
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 28, 2018
    Denied.
   GENOVESE, J., would grant.


text:
    William Lee FERGUSON, Indiv. and on Behalf of Crystal Ann Ferguson (D) v. LAMMICO, et al.
    NO. 2018-CC-0856
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 28, 2018
    Denied.
   WEIMER, J., would grant.


text:
    STATE EX REL. Pharaoh BRAZELL v. STATE of Louisiana
    NO. 2017-KH-1022
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 28, 2018
    Denied.


text:
    STATE EX REL. Christopher Duwayne FOSTER, Jr. v. STATE of Louisiana
    NO. 2017-KH-1094
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 28, 2018
    Denied. Relator has previously exhausted his right to state collateral review. See State ex rel. Foster v. State, 15-0747 (La. 2/5/16), 183 So.3d 508.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Evert FRANKLIN
    NO. 2018-KK-0876
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 28, 2018
    Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Troy STEPHENSON
    NO. 2017-K-2090
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 28, 2018
    Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Bryan Clayton ROBERTS
    NO. 2018-KH-0234
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 28, 2018
    Denied. Relator has previously exhausted his right to state collateral review. See State ex rel. Roberts v. State, 17-0880 (La. 9/28/18).
   CRICHTON, J., recused.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana, et al. v. The LOUISIANA LAND AND EXPLORATION CO., et al.
    NO. 2018-C-0476
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 28, 2018
    Denied.
   HUGHES, J., would grant.

GENOVESE, J., recused.


text:
    LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT C. LEHMAN, a Professional Law Corporation, Law Offices of Robert C. Lehman, LLC and Robert C. Lehman, Individually v. Shawn W. ROGERS, Rogers Law Firm, LLC d/b/a Rogers Law Firm, Norman J. Manton, Jr., and Louisiana Citizens Property Insurance Company
    NO. 2018-CC-0878
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 28, 2018
    Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Keith JOHNSON
    NO. 2018-KK-0840
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 28, 2018
    Denied.


text:
    NEW ORLEANS RIVERWALK MARKETPLACE, LLC v. The LOUISIANA TAX COMMISSION and Errol G. Williams, in his capacity as Assessor for the Parish of Orleans Norman S. Foster, as Ex-Officio Tax Collector for the City of New Orleans and the City of New Orleans
    NO. 2018-C-0889
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 28, 2018
    Denied.
    CLARK, J., would grant and docket.


text:
    NEW LIVING WORD SCHOOL v. The DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, a Department of the Executive Branch of the State of Louisiana and John White, in his official capacity as Superintendent of the Department of Education
    NO. 2018-CC-0898
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 28, 2018
    Denied.
   HUGHES, J., would grant.


author: HUGHES, J., would grant in part.

text:
    Mary E. ROPER v. The CITY OF BATON ROUGE/PARISH OF EAST BATON ROUGE and Casey Cashio, in his official capacity as Council Administrator-Treasurer for the City of Baton Rouge/Parish of East Baton Rouge, et al. and All Consolidated Cases
    NO. 2018-C-0854
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 28, 2018
    Denied.
   HUGHES, J., would grant in part.


text:
    A. Remy FRANSEN, Jr. and Allain F. Hardin v. The CITY OF NEW ORLEANS, et al.
    NO. 2018-C-0871
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 28, 2018
    Denied.


author: GUIDRY, J., would grant.

text:
    Gerald ARCENEAUX v. Mark Joseph TURNER, et al.
    NO. 2018-C-0877
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 28, 2018
    Denied.
   GUIDRY, J., would grant.


text:
    Augustine "Austin" OKUARUME v. SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY OF NEW ORLEANS; The Board of Supervisors of Southern University; and Dr. Robert B. Gex, Chancellor of Southern University of New Orleans
    NO. 2018-C-0880
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 28, 2018
    Denied.


text:
    STATE EX REL. Josef Lynn CASH v. STATE of Louisiana
    NO. 2017-KH-1219
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 28, 2018
    WRIT NOT CONSIDERED. Untimely filed pursuant to La.S.Ct.R. X § 5.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Edward George CREAUX
    NO. 2018-KH-1119
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 28, 2018
    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 of Louisiana v. Matthew J. FLUGENCE
    NO. 2018-KH-1403
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 28, 2018
    WRIT NOT CONSIDERED. Untimely filed pursuant to La.S.Ct.R. X § 5


author: GENOVESE, J., recused.

text:
    Patricia BELL v. CARENCRO NURSING HOME, INC. d/b/a Evangeline Oaks Guest House
    NO. 2018-C-0883
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 28, 2018
    Denied.
   GENOVESE, J., recused.


text:
    William Lee FERGUSON, Indiv. and on Behalf of Crystal Ann Ferguson (D) v. LAMMICO, et al.
    NO. 2018-CC-0884
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 28, 2018
    Denied.
   WEIMER, J., would grant.


text:
    IN RE the ROUGE HOUSE, LLC Appeal from Decision of State of Louisiana Dept. of Revenue, Office of Alcohol and Tobacco Control Denting Alcoholic Beverage Permit
    NO. 2018-OC-0910
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 28, 2018
    Denied.


text:
    James LUKENS, Taylor McInerney, Todd Tassin, Amelia Lambert and Mark Gagliano v. JOULE, LLC
    NO. 2018-CC-0893
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 28, 2018
    Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Christopher HANDY
    NO. 2018-KH-1346
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 28, 2018
    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:
    Gustave J. LABARRE, Jr., et al. v. OCCIDENTAL CHEMICAL COMPANY and Texas Brine Company, LLC, et al.
    NO. 2018-C-0912
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 28, 2018
    Denied.


text:
    Jamar T. HOOKS v. LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONS
    NO. 2018-CI-1164
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 28, 2018
    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:
    Thomas ANDERSON, et al. v. CITY OF NEW ORLEANS, et al.
    Thomas Anderson, et al. v. City of New Orleans, et al.
    Thomas Anderson, et al. v. City of New Orleans, et al.
    NO. 2018-C-0904
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 28, 2018
    Denied.
   HUGHES, J., would grant.


text:
    John M. PRICE, II v. Kellie Vercher PRICE
    NO. 2018-00913
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 28, 2018
    Denied.
   HUGHES, J., would grant.


text:
    Jacqueline J. GASPARD v. HORACE MANN INSURANCE COMPANY, et al.
    NO. 2018-C-0897
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 28, 2018
    Denied.
   HUGHES, J., would grant.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Jerrod R. VEZINA
    NO. 2018-KH-1314
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 28, 2018
    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 of Louisiana v. Kenny R. THOMAS
    NO. 2018-KH-1411
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 28, 2018
    WRIT NOT CONSIDERED. Untimely filed pursuant to La.S.Ct.R. X § 5.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Danny CHAIN
    NO. 2018-KH-1153
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 28, 2018
    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 of Louisiana v. Henderson WESLEY
    NO. 2018-KH-1194
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 28, 2018
    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:
    Cynthia BRIDGES, Secretary, Department of Revenue, State of Louisiana v. NELSON INDUSTRIAL STEAM COMPANY
    Cynthia Bridges, Secretary, Department of Revenue, State of Louisiana v. Nelson Industrial Steam Company
    Nelson Industrial Steam Company v. Calcasieu Parish School Board Sales and Use Tax Department, et al.
    Nelson Industrial Steam Company v. Calcasieu Parish School Board Sales and Use Tax Department, et al.
    NO. 2018-C-0907
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 28, 2018
    Denied.


text:
    BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY and Agricultural and Mechanical College v. Gregory GUTH, et al.
    NO. 2018-CC-0903
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 28, 2018
    Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Lance BARTON
    NO. 2018-KH-1236
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 28, 2018
    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:
    Mazella Shahan FLOURNOY v. OUR LADY OF LOURDES REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, INC. and Keith Colomb, M.D.
    NO. 2018-C-0909
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 28, 2018
    Denied.


text:
    Tasha Tolar CARRIERE, et al. v. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, et al.
    NO. 2018-CC-0895
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 28, 2018
    Denied.


text:
    Jamel PICKNEY v. LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY & CORRECTIONS
    NO. 2018-CI-1196
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 28, 2018
    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 of Louisiana v. Steven Jermaine CHARLES
    NO. 2018-KH-1201
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    September 28, 2018
    WRIT NOT CONSIDERED. Untimely filed pursuant to La.S.Ct.R. X § 5.