Opinion
23-CA-582
09-25-2024
JACOBIE GREEN v. JEFFERSON PARISH CLERK OF COURT OFFICE AND THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY PAUL CONNICK, ET AL.
PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT, JACOBIE GREEN In Proper Person COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE, DISTRICT ATTORNEY PAUL D. CONNICK, JR., Honorable Paul D. Connick, Jr., Thomas J. Butler, Darren A. Allemand COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE, JEFFERSON PARISH CLERK OF COURT Carey B. Daste
ON APPEAL FROM THE TWENTY-FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF LOUISIANA NO. 843-270, DIVISION "J" HONORABLE STEPHEN C. GREFER, JUDGE PRESIDING
APPEAL DISMISSED
SMC
MEJ
SUS
PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT, JACOBIE GREEN In Proper Person
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE, DISTRICT ATTORNEY PAUL D. CONNICK, JR., Honorable Paul D. Connick, Jr., Thomas J. Butler, Darren A. Allemand
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE, JEFFERSON PARISH CLERK OF COURT Carey B. Daste
Panel composed of Susan M. Chehardy, Marc E. Johnson, and Scott U.Schlegel Judges.
SUSAN M. CHEHARDY, CHIEF JUDGE.
Appellant, Jacobie Green, appeals the trial court's October 11, 2023 judgment granting the exceptions of no cause of action and no right of action in favor of appellee, the District Attorney for the Parish of Jefferson, and dismissing Mr. Green's petition for writ of mandamus against the District Attorney with prejudice. For the following reasons, we dismiss this appeal.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
This matter arises out of a public records request submitted by Mr. Green, first to the Jefferson Parish Clerk of Court, and subsequently to the Jefferson Parish District Attorney. In September 2015, a Jefferson Parish grand jury indicted Mr. Green on two counts of second degree murder and one count of attempted second degree murder in case number 15-3758. A superseding bill of indictment was filed in October 2015, which adopted the original indictment with respect to Mr. Green. Following a jury trial in August 2018, Mr. Green was unanimously found guilty as charged. The court sentenced Mr. Green to life imprisonment for the two counts of second degree murder and to fifty years imprisonment for the one count of attempted second degree murder, all without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence, to run consecutively. This Court affirmed Mr. Green's convictions and sentences. State v. Green, 19-123 (La.App. 5 Cir. 12/26/19), 286 So.3d 1230, writ denied, 21-51 (La. 3/9/21), 312 So.3d 583.
Mr. Green was indicted along with separately tried co-defendants.
By letter dated June 2, 2023, Mr. Green filed a public records request with the Jefferson Parish Clerk of Court. The letter contained the following reference:
RE: Vote Count on Grand Jury Indictment
COPY OF THE MINUTES OR DOCUMENTS REFLECTING A TRUE BILL OF INDICTMENT WAS FOUND BY NO LESS THAN NINE MEMBERS OF THE GRAND JURY [Record of Vote Count on indictment by grand jury]
In the letter, Mr. Green requested to "inspect and copy: Two (2) counts of Second Degree Murder and (1) count of Attempted Second Degree Murder ... in Criminal Docket No. 153857-SECTION 'J.'" The letter further requested that the Clerk of Court send to Mr. Green "the full costs, including the postage[,]" once the requested "minutes or documents" were located. Mr. Green indicated that he would then "promptly submit full payment" to the Clerk of Court's office.
On June 13, 2023, the Clerk's Office responded to Mr. Green's request for information and/or documents, advising him that he should "contact the DAs office for [the] requested documents" as the Clerk's Office does not maintain copies of the records Mr. Green requested. Accordingly, on June 23, 2023, Mr. Green submitted a similar request to the Jefferson Parish District Attorney's office, requesting to inspect and copy, among other things, the "vote count of the grand jury in this case under the Public Records Act," but received no response.
Subsequently, Mr. Green filed a petition for writ of mandamus on July 19, 2023, directed to the Clerk of Court and the District Attorney, seeking to compel documentation of his "true bill of indictment, the grand jury count on the second degree murder charges, and the return in open court." In response to Mr. Green's petition, on September 25, 2023, the District Attorney filed peremptory exceptions of no cause of action and no right of action asserting that as a practice, while the District Attorney does verify with the grand jurors that a quorum of a least nine jurors voted to return a true bill of indictment, his office does not obtain a transcript of that exchange. The District Attorney further averred that, to his knowledge, no such transcript of that portion of Mr. Green's grand jury proceeding had ever been generated. Nonetheless, the District Attorney argued that he is not the proper party to request that such a document be generated, and that Mr. Green had not shown a particularized need for the document that outweighed the interest of grand jury secrecy.
The District Attorney's exceptions came for hearing on September 28, 2023. At the close of the hearing, the trial court granted the exceptions of no cause and no right of action, and dismissed Mr. Green's petition for writ of mandamus with prejudice. The trial court issued a written judgment on October 11, 2023, reflecting this ruling. This appeal followed.
The Clerk of Court did not join in the District Attorney's exceptions or make an appearance at the hearing.
In Mr. Green's brief on appeal, he sets forth three assignments of error as to why the trial court's October 11, 2023 judgment dismissing his petition for writ of mandamus should be reversed: (1) the Clerk of Court failed to produce a public record of the grand jury vote count of the charged indictment; (2) the Clerk of Court failed to record the grand jury vote count on any of the charged indictments; and (3) the Clerk of Court deprived him of his right to a public record, violating his right to due process and equal protection of law.
Although the Clerk of Court has filed an appellee brief purportedly responding to the assignments of error raised by Mr. Green, the record on appeal confirms that the Clerk of Court did not file an answer to Mr. Green's petition for writ of mandamus, did not file (nor join in the District Attorney's) exceptions of no cause and no right of action, and did not otherwise make an appearance in the trial court in this matter. More significantly, the Clerk of Court was not a party to the proceedings resulting in the October 11, 2023 judgment from which Mr. Green now appeals. In fact, the judgment is completely silent as to the Clerk of Court and, thus, does not alter the status of the Clerk of Court as a litigant in this case. Put simply, the judgment appealed from does not dismiss Mr. Green's petition for writ of mandamus as it relates to the Clerk of Court, and only dismisses the petition with prejudice as to Mr. Green's claims against the District Attorney.
Mr. Green's appellant brief, however, does not allege the trial court erred in granting the District Attorney's exceptions. In fact, Mr. Green sets forth no assignment of error regarding the October 11, 2023 judgment as it relates to the District Attorney, the only defendant that was a party to the proceeding, and the only party in whose favor the judgment at issue was actually rendered. Consequently, there is no valid assignment of error in the October 11, 2023 judgment for this Court to review. For these reasons, Mr. Green's appeal must be dismissed.
APPEAL DISMISSED.