From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Leagea v. Leblanc

STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT
Sep 13, 2013
2013 CA 0052 (La. Ct. App. Sep. 13, 2013)

Opinion

2013 CA 0052

2013-09-13

AARON LEAGEA v. JAMES LEBLANC, SECRETARY, LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; TERRY TERRELL, WARDEN OF ALC; AND PRISCILLA PITRE, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS RECORDS ANALYST, ALC

Aaron Leagea Kinder, Louisiana Plaintiff/Appellant, In Proper Person Jonathan R. Vining Baton Rouge, Louisiana Attorney for Defendant/Appellee, James M. LeBlanc, Secretary, 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

Suit Number 600,818, Section 24


The Honorable R. Michael Caldwell, Judge Presiding

Aaron Leagea
Kinder, Louisiana
Plaintiff/Appellant,
In Proper Person
Jonathan R. Vining
Baton Rouge, Louisiana
Attorney for Defendant/Appellee,
James M. LeBlanc, Secretary,
Louisiana Department of Public
Safety and Corrections

BEFORE: PARRO, GUIDRY, AND DRAKE, JJ.

DRAKE, J.

Plaintiff/Appellant, Aaron Leagea, appeals a judgment of the district court that dismissed, with prejudice, his petition for judicial review initiated against the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections ("DPSC"). For the following reasons, we affirm.

BACKGROUND

Aaron Leagea is currently an inmate in the custody of the DPSC. On November 14, 1985, a jury found Aaron Leagea guilty of attempted armed robbery and attempted second degree murder. Mr. Leagea was subsequently adjudicated a second felony habitual offender on December 3, 1985. Pursuant to the habitual offender adjudication, Mr. Leagea received a sentence of fifty years at hard labor for the attempted second degree murder conviction. Additionally, pursuant to the habitual offender adjudication, Mr. Leagea received a concurrent sentence of fifty years at hard labor for the attempted armed robbery conviction, without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence. Subsequently, an out-of-time appeal ensued, and this court affirmed the convictions, vacated the habitual offender adjudications and sentences, and remanded to the district court. See State v. Leagea, 554 So. 2d 833 (La. App. 1st Cir. 1989). Following remand, on March 6, 1990, the State amended Mr. Leagea's habitual offender bill of information. The amended bill lists Mr. Leagea's conviction for attempted armed robbery and cites his August 11, 1982 conviction of illegal use of a weapon as the prior felony. At the habitual offender re-adjudication hearing on May 8, 1990, Mr. Leagea received a sentence of fifty years at hard labor on each count of attempted second degree murder and attempted armed robbery. However, the court ordered that the sentence on the attempted armed robbery conviction be served without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence. The court also ordered the sentences to run concurrent with each other, and concurrent with any other time Mr. Leagea was serving.

Docket number 4-85-1269 of the Nineteenth Judicial District Court for the Parish of East Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

The prior felony cited by the district attorney was Mr. Leagea's August 11, 1982 conviction of illegal use of a weapon, a violation of Louisiana Revised Statutes 14:94, under docket number 5-82-678 of the Nineteenth Judicial District Court for the Parish of East Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

Mr. Leagea's habitual offender bill, filed November 15, 1985, lists both the attempted armed robbery and attempted second degree murder convictions. At the habitual offender adjudication hearing, the district court did not specify which conviction was being enhanced as a second felony under Louisiana Revised Statutes 15:529.1. Therefore, this court concluded that both convictions were enhanced as second felonies under the statute. At the time Mr. Leagea was sentenced, such a result was prohibited by the so-called "one day, one conviction, rule," requiring that when two or more convictions are entered on the same day, only one such conviction can be enhanced under the habitual offender statute. See State v. Sherer, 411 So. 2d 1050 (La. 1982). State v. Sherer has since been overruled by State v. Shaw, 06-2467 (La. 11/27/07), 969 So. 2d 1233 (all sentences for conviction on same date for a single course of criminal conduct are subject to enhancement under the Habitual Offender Law, La. R.S. 15:529.1). Both of the instant offenses occurred as a result of the same criminal transaction and were charged in the same indictment. Therefore, this court affirmed Mr. Leagea's attempted armed robbery and attempted second degree murder convictions. This court vacated Mr. Leagea's habitual offender adjudications and sentences and remanded to the district court, with an order that should the State decide to again institute habitual offender proceedings against Mr. Leagea, only one of his two convictions could be enhanced. Leagea, 554 So. 2d at 836.

In April 2011, Mr. Leagea initiated an administrative remedy procedure ("ARP"), assigned number ALC-2010-893, against prison officials at the Allen Correctional Facility, where he is currently an inmate. Mr. Leagea complained he was improperly denied diminution of sentence, often referred to as "good time," as provided in Louisiana Revised Statutes 15:571.3. At each step of the process, prison officials denied Mr. Leagea's request. Dissatisfied with the response from prison officials, Mr. Leagea filed a petition for judicial review with the Nineteenth Judicial District Court. Following a hearing, the commissioner issued his report. The commissioner determined that, based on the law "as it stood during the time the petitioner filed his ARP, he met the requirements of R.S. 15:571.3(C)," and the commissioner recommended that Mr. Leagea's request for judicial review be dismissed. Following a de novo review of the record, the oral arguments, applicable law, and Mr. Leagea's traversal, the district court dismissed Mr. Leagea's petition for judicial review, with prejudice. Mr. Leagea now appeals.

In an order signed July 28, 2011, the district court dismissed any party other than the DPSC, with prejudice, as a defendant in this matter and designated that the matter would proceed as a request for judicial review against the DPSC, pursuant to Louisiana Revised Statutes 15:1177(A)(1)(b).

LAW AND DISCUSSION

Judicial Review of Administrative Actions of the DPSC

Louisiana Revised Statutes 15:1177 provides for judicial review of an adverse final administrative decision by the DPSC. Section 1171(B) grants authority to the DPSC and to each sheriff to adopt administrative remedy procedures in compliance with federal law to receive, hear, and dispose of all offender "complaints and grievances[.]" The statute further provides, in pertinent part:

Such complaints and grievances include but are not limited to any and all claims seeking monetary, injunctive, declaratory, or any other form of relief authorized by law and by way of illustration includes actions pertaining to conditions of confinement, personal injuries, medical malpractice, time computations, even though urged as a writ of habeas corpus, or challenges to rules, regulations, policies, or statutes. Such administrative procedures, when promulgated, shall provide the exclusive remedy available to the offender for complaints or grievances governed thereby insofar as federal law allows.

We note that in Pope v. State, 99-2559 (La. 6/29/01), 792 So. 2d 713, the court found section 1171(B) unconstitutional as applied to tort actions because Louisiana Constitution article V, Section 16(A) grants original jurisdiction over tort claims exclusively to the district courts. See also La. R.S. 15:1177(C).

On review of the agency's decision, the district court functions as an appellate court. Its review shall be confined to the record and shall be limited to the issues presented in the petition for review and the administrative remedy request filed at the agency level. La. R.S. 15:1177(A)(5). The court may affirm the decision of the agency, remand the case for further proceedings, or order that additional evidence be taken. La. R.S. 15:1177(A)(8). The court may reverse or modify the administrative decision only if substantial rights of the appellant have been prejudiced because the administrative findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions are: (1) in violation of constitutional or statutory provisions; (2) in excess of the statutory authority of the agency; (3) made upon unlawful procedure; (4) affected by other error of law; (5) arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion; or (6) manifestly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record. La. R.S. 15:1177(A)(9); See Madison v. Ward, 00-2842 (La. App. 1 Cir. 7/3/02), 825 So. 2d 1245, 1251-52.

On review of the district court's judgment under Louisiana Revised Statutes 15:1177, no deference is owed by the court of appeal to the factual findings or legal conclusions of the district court, just as no deference is owed by the Louisiana Supreme Court to factual findings or legal conclusions of the court of appeal. McCoy v. Stalder, 99-1747 (La. App. 1st Cir. 9/22/00), 770 So. 2d 447, 450-51; Owens v. Stalder, 06-1120 (La. App. 1 Cir. 6/8/07), 965 So. 2d 886, 888; Madison v. Ward, 825 So. 2d at 1251-52. Diminution of Sentence/"Good Time" Credits

Mr. Leagea avers he was earning diminution of sentence for a total of twenty-five years prior to being advised that he would no longer be eligible to earn "good time" credit towards his sentences. Mr. Leagea contends he opted for diminution of sentence in lieu of incentive wages in 1986, while incarcerated at the Louisiana State Penitentiary in Angola. On November 22, 2010, Mr. Leagea alleges that the DPSC records analyst for Allen Correctional Center discontinued Mr. Leagea's earning of "good time" credit, stating that the Louisiana State Penitentiary in Angola erred in allowing Mr. Leagea to earn "good time" credit, as he was never eligible to earn diminution of his sentence due to his adjudication as a habitual offender.

A strong presumption exists in Louisiana law that the statute in effect at the time of the offense governs the applicable punishment for the crime. State v. Hyde, 07-1314 (La. 11/21/07), 968 So. 2d 726. At the time Mr. Leagea committed his offenses, Louisiana Revised Statutes 15:571.3(C) did not allow an inmate in the custody of the DPSC to earn diminution of sentence if the inmate had been: (1) convicted one or more times of certain crimes, including attempted second degree murder or attempted armed robbery; and (2) the inmate had been sentenced as an habitual offender pursuant to Louisiana Revised Statutes 15:529.1; and (3) the inmate's last conviction for the purposes of the habitual offender statute was a crime committed on or after September 10, 1977.

Louisiana Revised Statutes 15:571.3 was amended by 1984 La. Acts 137, § 1. Mr. Leagea committed the instant offenses in 1985 and was subsequently convicted and sentenced in 1986 and 1990. Louisiana Revised Statutes 15:571.3 was not amended again until 1991. Thus, the version of Louisiana Revised Statutes 15:571.3 that is applicable to Mr. Leagea lists both attempted second degree murder and attempted armed robbery as crimes, which if committed, preclude the earning of diminution of sentence through "good time" credit, regardless of which prior felony is being used to enhance the sentence under Louisiana Revised Statutes 15:529.1.
--------

Adopting the reasons stated by the commissioner, the district court determined that Mr. Leagea is not eligible to earn diminution of his sentence through "good time" credit. First, Mr. Leagea's present conviction for attempted armed robbery, specifically listed under the applicable version of Louisiana Revised Statutes 15:571.3(C)(1)(k) and (r), is designated as one of the offenses, which if committed, prevents a defendant from earning diminution of sentence. Secondly, Mr. Leagea was sentenced as a habitual offender under Louisiana Revised Statutes 15:529.1 on May 8, 1990. Finally, Mr. Leagea's last conviction was committed on March 27, 1985, well after September 10, 1977. Therefore, the district court concluded that Mr. Leagea was not eligible to earn diminution of his sentence through "good time" credit. We agree and hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Mr. Leagea's petition for judicial review, with prejudice.

DECREE

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court on judicial review of this administrative remedy procedures. All costs of this appeal are assessed against Defendant/Appellant, Aaron Leagea.

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

Leagea v. Leblanc

STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT
Sep 13, 2013
2013 CA 0052 (La. Ct. App. Sep. 13, 2013)
Case details for

Leagea v. Leblanc

Case Details

Full title:AARON LEAGEA v. JAMES LEBLANC, SECRETARY, LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF…

Court:STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT

Date published: Sep 13, 2013

Citations

2013 CA 0052 (La. Ct. App. Sep. 13, 2013)