Opinion
NO. 2013 CA 0022
03-27-2013
DEWITT EAMES v. STATE OF LOUISIANA
J. Rodney Messina Baton Rouge, Louisiana Attorney for Plaintiff/Appellant, Dewitt Eames William L. Kline Baton Rouge, Louisiana Attorney for Defendant/Appellee, Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
On Appeal from the
19th Judicial District Court,
In and for the Parish of East Baton Rouge,
State of Louisiana
No. 583,566, Sec. 23
The Honorable William A. Morvant, Judge Presiding
J. Rodney Messina
Baton Rouge, Louisiana
Attorney for Plaintiff/Appellant,
Dewitt Eames
William L. Kline
Baton Rouge, Louisiana
Attorney for Defendant/Appellee,
Louisiana Department of Public
Safety and Corrections
BEFORE: PARRO, GUIDRY, AND DRAKE, JJ.
DRAKE, J.
Dewitt Eames appeals the district court's dismissal of his suit for failure to state a cause of action for habeas corpus or any other claim against the State of Louisiana. For the reasons stated herein, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Eames was convicted of second degree murder in violation of La. R.S. 14:30.1 following a jury trial on October 25, 1997, and sentenced to life imprisonment without benefit of parole, probation or suspension of sentence on January 23, 1997. Eames appealed his conviction, which was affirmed by this court in State v. Eames, 97-0161 (La. App. 1 Cir. 5/15/98), 714 So. 2d 210, writ denied, 98-1640 (La. 11/6/98), 726 So. 2d 922. Eames filed for post conviction relief, which the district court denied. State v. Eames, No. 10-94-412, 19th Judicial District Court, Parish of East Baton Rouge (19th JDC). This court denied supervisory writs in State ex rel. Eames v. Burl Cain, 01-0132 (La. App. 1 Cir. 5/31/01)(unpublished writ action), writ denied, State ex rel Eames v. State, 01-2385 (La. 5/24/02), 816 So. 2d 301.
On August 10, 2009, Eames filed an application for habeas corpus relief in West Feliciana Parish (20th JDC). The 20th Judicial District Court, Parish of West Feliciana, determined that the appellant alleged two violations: 1) the prosecutor knowingly used false testimony; and 2) the appellant was denied effective assistance of counsel resulting in an unlawful custody. Finding that the two violations alleged were actually a petition for post conviction relief rather than a cause of action for habeas corpus, the 20th JDC transferred the matter to the Parish of East Baton Rouge pursuant to Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure article 925, which provides that applications for post conviction relief shall be filed in the parish in which the petitioner was convicted. The 19th JDC, Parish of East Baton Rouge, dismissed Eames's case for failure to state a cause of action, in agreement with the recommendation of the Commissioner, Section A, 19th JDC (Commissioner). Eames sought supervisory writs from the 19th JDC's ruling. This court held that the district court's judgment of March 29, 2010, was a final appealable judgment and remanded the case with orders that the district court grant an appeal to Eames. This appeal is now properly before this court.
The office of commissioner of the 19th JDC was created by La. R.S. 13:711 to hear and recommend disposition of criminal and civil proceedings arising out of the incarceration of state prisoners. The Commissioner's written findings and recommendations are submitted to a district court judge, who may accept, reject, or modify them. La. R.S. 13:713(C)(5); see Martinez v. Tanner, 11-0692 (La. App. 1 Cir. 11/9/11), 79 So. 3d 1082, 1084 n.3, writ denied, 11-2732 (La. 7/27/12), 93 So. 3d 597.
LAW AND DISCUSSION
The district court adopted the written reasons of the Commissioner, and this court agrees with those reasons. At the outset, the Commissioner noted:
[Eames] asserts that the State encouraged unreliable or lying witnesses to testify against him, and further that this counsel was ineffective for a variety of reasons listed in his habeas petition.The Commissioner pointed out that all of the allegations made by Eames are those for post conviction relief. The Commissioner noted:
This suit does not appear to be properly before this Court as a habeas action, as [Eames] states no cause of action against the State of Louisiana for immediate release. On the contrary, he admits that he is presently serving a life sentence for his conviction for second degree murder. His entire complaint rests on grounds normally urged under the statutory law for post conviction relief application.
Eames argues that he is now entitled to habeas corpus relief, since he has exhausted his avenues for relief pursuant to La. C.Cr.P. art. 924 et seq., the articles for post conviction relief. However, Eames is mistaken that habeas corpus is a method to reiterate claims that were made or should have been made as post conviction relief.
As noted by Eames, Louisiana Constitution article I, section 21 sets forth that "[t]he writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended." The post conviction relief articles and the times therein are not a suspension of habeas corpus. See La. C.Cr.P. art. 924 et seq. Eames concedes that Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure article 35i states that habeas corpus is "not available to persons entitled to file an application for post conviction relief." "Habeas corpus" is defined as "a writ commanding a person who has another in his custody to produce him before the court and to state the authority for the custody." La. C.Cr.P. art. 351. Generally, habeas corpus is not the proper procedural device for petitioners who may file applications for post conviction relief. La. C.Cr.P. art. 351, comment (c). Essentially, habeas corpus deals with preconviction complaints concerning custody. Id. An application for post conviction relief is a petition filed by a person in custody after sentence following conviction for the commission of an offense seeking to have the conviction and sentence set aside. State ex rel James v. State, 640 So. 2d 259 (La. App. 1 Cir. 1993); La. C.Cr.P. art. 924(1).
James involved the exact argument that appellant asserts: that he is eligible for habeas relief because he is no longer entitled to post conviction relief. However, this court in James determined that habeas corpus and post conviction complaints are fundamentally different. As in James, Eames claims that his custody is unlawful because his conviction is invalid. The two reasons he asserts that his conviction is invalid is the prosecutor's use of false testimony and ineffective assistance of counsel. These are both claims for post conviction relief.
In 1998, when Eames was convicted, Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure article 930.8(A) provided three years to file for post conviction relief after the judgment of conviction and sentence became final. Article 930.8(A) was amended by 1999 Louisiana Acts, Number 1262, section 1, to allow only two years to file for post conviction relief. Under either the two year or three year period, the time has run for Eames to apply for post conviction relief. Furthermore, Eames did file for post conviction relief, which was ultimately denied. State ex rel. Eames, 816 So. 2d 301. He cannot now make post conviction relief claims and call them "habeas corpus" claims.
Habeas corpus is not available to contest the validity of the conviction or to have the sentence set aside; such claims are considered requests for post conviction relief. Sinclair v. Kennedy, 96-1510 (La. App. 1 Cir. 9/19/97), 701 So. 2d 457, 460, writ denied, 97-2495 (La. 4/3/98), 717 So. 2d 645. Habeas corpus is a means of challenging the authority of the custodian of a person, and it is not available to one who may file a post conviction relief application. State v. Thompson, 481 So. 2d 1060, 1061 (La. App. 1 Cir. 1985).
Eames relies upon State ex rel Glover v. State, 93-2330 (La. 9/5/95), 660 So. 2d 1189, abrogated on other grounds by State ex rel. Olivieri v. State, 00-0172 (La. 2/21/01), 779 So. 2d 735, cert denied, 533 U.S. 936, 121 S.Ct. 2566, 150 L.Ed.2d 730 (2001). The Louisiana Supreme Court explained in Glover that "Title IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure contains La.C.Cr.P. art. 351 et seq. (habeas corpus), while Title XXXI-A contains La.C.Cr.P. art. 924 et seq. (post conviction relief)." Glover, 660 So. 2d at 1195. Eames purports to bring his claim pursuant to La. C.Cr.P. art. 362(2) which permits habeas corpus relief if "[t]he original custody was lawful, but by some act, omission, or event which has since occurred, the custody has become unlawful." All of the claims Eames relies upon to assert that his custody is now unlawful occurred during the trial. He points to no event that has occurred subsequent to his original custody. All of the claims Eames asserts are for post conviction relief, not habeas corpus relief. Therefore, the district court correctly dismissed Eames's petition for habeas corpus relief.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is affirmed. Costs of the appeal are assessed to Dewitt Eames.
AFFIRMED.