Opinion
2017 CA 1002
02-16-2018
STEVEN CAMPBELL v. LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONS
Steven Campbell Angie, Louisiana Petitioner-Appellant In Proper Person Debra A. Rutledge Baton Rouge, Louisiana Counsel for Defendant-Appellee Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION ON APPEAL FROM THE NINETEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
NUMBER 651230, SECTION 24, PARISH OF EAST BATON ROUGE
STATE OF LOUISIANA HONORABLE R. MICHAEL CALDWELL, JUDGE Steven Campbell
Angie, Louisiana Petitioner-Appellant
In Proper Person Debra A. Rutledge
Baton Rouge, Louisiana Counsel for Defendant-Appellee
Louisiana Department of Public Safety
and Corrections BEFORE: WHIPPLE, C.J., McDONALD, AND CHUTZ, JJ.
Disposition: AFFIRMED.
CHUTZ, J.
Petitioner, Steven Campbell, an inmate in the custody of the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections (DPSC), appeals a district court judgment dismissing his petition for judicial review. We affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In April 2016, petitioner filed administrative remedy procedure RCC-2016-279 in which he alleged the predicate conviction underlying his habitual offender adjudication as a second-felony offender had been vacated, thereby rendering him a first offender. He requested a reduction of his habitual offender sentence and/or imposition of a sentence eligible for good time credits and a release on good time parole. DPSC denied petitioner's request for relief at the first and second steps on the grounds that he was ineligible for good time under La. R.S. 15:571.1 since he was sentenced as a habitual offender convicted of a second crime of violence.
Petitioner filed a petition for judicial review in the Nineteenth Judicial District Court (19th JDC), Parish of East Baton Rouge, asserting that once the predicate conviction underlying his habitual offender adjudication was vacated in 2011, his 2006 habitual offender sentence became illegal. On this basis, he argued his habitual offender sentence should be vacated. According to petitioner, DPSC "'erroneously' used some other offender's charges and records to deny him relief."
The commissioner assigned to review the petition concluded in his screening report that the 19th JDC lacked jurisdiction to consider petitioner's complaints or to overturn his habitual offender adjudication since petitioner's habitual offender adjudication and sentence were imposed by the 24th Judicial Court (24th JDC), Parish of Jefferson. Because the petition for judicial review failed to state a cause of action or cognizable claim for which relief could be granted by the 19th JDC, the commissioner recommended that petitioner's lawsuit be dismissed in accordance with La. R.S. 15:1178 and 15:1188. The district court rendered judgment dismissing the petition for judicial review without prejudice, adopting the commissioner's recommendation and reasons as its own. Petitioner has now appealed.
DISCUSSION
On appeal, petitioner contends the 19th JDC erred in failing to address the merits of his claims that his habitual offender sentence became illegal when his predicate conviction was vacated and that he was denied relief on the basis of someone else's convictions. He argues the 19th JDC is not free to ignore the effects of his predicate conviction being vacated. Based on this argument, he contends his habitual offender sentence should be vacated and he should be released from custody.
Based on our review of the record, we find no error in the district court's dismissal of the petition for judicial review. Regardless of whether petitioner's claims concerning the legality of his sentence have merit, the 19th JDC lacked jurisdiction to grant petitioner the relief he sought, i.e., reducing or vacating his habitual offender sentence. First, a district court lacks authority to correct an illegal sentence on a petition for judicial review. Boddye v. Louisiana Department of Corrections , 14-1836 (La. App. 1st Cir. 6/26/15), 175 So.3d 437, 442, writ denied, 15-1688 (La. 10/30/15), 180 So.3d 303; Robinson v. Stalder , 08-0495 (La. App. 1st Cir. 9/23/08), 21 So.3d 318, 320, writ denied, 09-0539 (La. 12/11/09), 23 So.3d 916; see also Straughter v. Louisiana Department of Public Safety & Corrections , 17-0384 (La. App. 1st Cir. 11/1/17), ___ So.3d ___, ___. Second, while an illegal sentence may be corrected at any time, only the sentencing court itself or appellate courts having jurisdiction over the sentencing court have authority to do so. La. C.Cr.P. art. 882(A); Boddye , 175 So.3d at 442; Robinson , 21 So.3d at 320. Since petitioner was sentenced as a habitual offender in Jefferson Parish, neither the 19th JDC nor this court have jurisdiction over petitioner's illegal sentence claims. Madison v. Ward , 00-2842 (La. App. 1st Cir. 7/3/02), 825 So.2d 1245, 1255 (en banc), superseded by statute on other grounds; Davis v. Louisiana Department of Public Safety & Corrections , 15-0377, p. 1 (La. App. 1st Cir. 11/6/15) (unpublished), writs denied, 16-0002 (La. 4/24/17), 220 So.3d 739 and 16-0029 (La. 5/1/17), 219 So.3d 331.
Under the circumstances, the proper procedure for petitioner to seek the relief he requests is through a motion to correct an illegal sentence filed in the court that imposed his habitual offender sentence. Madison , 825 So.2d at 1255; Davis , 15-0377 at p. 1. Thus, any challenges to the legality of petitioner's habitual offender sentence should be filed in the 24th JDC, Parish of Jefferson.
An illegal sentence may also be corrected through a timely motion for reconsideration of sentence directed to the sentencing court or a timely direct appeal of the sentence to the appropriate appellate court. Madison , 825 So.2d at 1255; Davis , 15-0377 at p. 1. In the instant case, however, the time delays for filing a motion for reconsideration of sentence and/or for an appeal presumably have expired. See La. C.Cr.P. arts. 881(A) and 914(B).
Petitioner previously filed a motion in the 24th JDC concerning DPSC's calculation of his habitual offender sentence. The 24th JDC denied the motion, correctly noting in its order that petitioner was required to challenge DPSC's time computations through the administrative remedy procedure. In subsequently challenging the legality of his sentence through the administrative remedy procedure, it appears petitioner was unaware of the distinction between a time computation claim, which must be raised through the administrative remedy procedure, and a motion to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to La. C.Cr.P. art. 882, which must be filed in the court that imposed the sentence. --------
CONCLUSION
For the above reasons, the judgment of the district court dismissing petitioner, Steven Campbell's, petition for judicial review without prejudice is affirmed. All costs of this appeal are assessed to petitioner.
AFFIRMED.