Morrison v. Leblanc

Full title: REGINALD MORRISON v. JAMES M. LEBLANC, SECRETARY, LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF…

Court: STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT

Date published: Dec 23, 2014

2014 CA 0332 (La. Ct. App. Dec. 23, 2014)

Opinion

2014 CA 0332

12-23-2014

REGINALD MORRISON v. JAMES M. LEBLANC, SECRETARY, LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONS AND BURL CAIN, WARDEN, LOUISIANA STATE PENITENTIARY

Reginald Morrison Angola, Louisiana Plaintiff/Appellant In Proper Person Terri L. Cannon Legal Programs Department Louisiana State Penitentiary Angola, Louisiana Attorney for Defendant James M. Leblanc, Secretary, Department of Public Safety and Corrections and Burl Cain, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary

DRAKE, J.

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION On Appeal from the 19^th Judicial District Court In and for the Parish of East Baton Rouge State of Louisiana
No. C610421, Div. F, Sec. 22
The Honorable Timothy Kelley, Judge Presiding Reginald Morrison
Angola, Louisiana
Plaintiff/Appellant
In Proper Person
Terri L. Cannon
Legal Programs Department
Louisiana State Penitentiary
Angola, Louisiana
Attorney for Defendant
James M. Leblanc, Secretary,
Department of Public Safety and
Corrections and Burl Cain, Warden,
Louisiana State Penitentiary
BEFORE: GUIDRY, THERIOT, AND DRAKE, JJ.

DRAKE, J.

Reginald Morrison, a prisoner in the custody of the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections (the Department), appeals a judgment dismissing his petition for judicial review. For the following reasons, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Mr. Morrison was convicted of second degree murder in the 19^th Judicial District Court. On May 19, 1976, Mr. Morrison was sentenced to life imprisonment to be served without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence for the first forty years. However, the amendment to the law that allowed for a life sentence to be served without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence for the first forty years was not yet in effect at the time of the offense for which Mr. Morrison was convicted and committed.¹ Therefore, the sentencing judge re-sentenced Mr. Morrison seven days later, on May 26, 1976, to life imprisonment to be served without the benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence for the first twenty years. The trial court minutes show that Mr. Morrison's counsel stated at the re-sentencing that he had no objection to the amendment of the sentence by the court.

1 The effective date of the increased penalties for a violation of La. R.S. 14:30.1 was September 12, 1975. See La. Acts 1975, No. 380, § 1.

Mr. Morrison appealed his conviction and sentence to this court.² Thereafter, Mr. Morrison appealed his conviction and sentence to the Louisiana Supreme Court. In State v. Morrison, 343 So. 2d 182, 185 (La. 1977), the supreme court affirmed Mr. Morrison's conviction but further ordered:

2 That appeal is not found in the record of this case.

With respect to defendant's sentence: he was given life imprisonment without benefit of probation, parole[,] or suspension of sentence for a period of forty years. However, at the time the offense was committed the legal sentence was life imprisonment without benefit of probation, parole[,] or suspension of sentence for a period of twenty years. (The offense was committed on April 28, 1974, while the effective date of the increased penalties for violation of R.S.

14:30.1 was September 12, 1975). The case, therefore, must be remanded to the trial court for resentencing.

Apparently, the Louisiana Supreme Court did not have the trial court's resentencing record of May 26, 1976, in the record that was before it prior to issuing its opinion. Mr. Morrison was not re-sentenced following the Louisiana Supreme Court decision, because he had already been resentenced correctly.

Mr. Morrison thereafter initiated the administrative relief process, asserting that, because he had not been resentenced following the Louisiana Supreme Court decision, he had no sentence in effect and he should be released. The Department denied relief.

Mr. Morrison then sought judicial review of this denial of relief at the 19^thJudicial District Court, arguing that the action of the Louisiana Supreme Court setting aside his first sentence meant that there was no sentence at all in place; that he had not been re-sentenced following the decision of the supreme court; and that he should be released. The 19^th Judicial District Court Commissioner's recommendation, dated December 11, 1997, found that Mr. Morrison misunderstood the order of the supreme court. The Commissioner found that:

It is my opinion that the order of the Supreme Court was to set aside a sentence of life without benefit of parole for 40 years, if one had been in effect. It is my opinion that such a sentence was not in effect, that the illegal sentence was properly amended or set aside by the action of the 19^th Judicial District Court on May 26, 1976.

The Commissioner recommended that Mr. Morrison's suit, seeking a writ of habeas corpus, be denied. The 19^th Judicial District Court rendered judgment in favor of the defendants on January 15, 1998, denying the claims of Mr. Morrison and dismissing his suit with prejudice.

Mr. Morrison appealed that judgment to this court. On December 28, 1998, this court affirmed the trial court's decision and adopted the recommendation of the Commissioner. See State ex rel. Morrison v. Cain, 98-0576 (La. App. 1 Cir. 12/28/98) (unpublished).

Thereafter, on March 3, 1999, Mr. Morrison filed suit in the 20^th Judicial District Court applying for the issuance of writs of habeas corpus and mandamus, asking that he be released from custody. Mr. Morrison asserted that he was sentenced to twenty years imprisonment, without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence. He asserted that he has served the full sentence as of November 1997. He named as defendants in the suit Burl Cain, the Warden of the Louisiana State Penitentiary at Angola, and Richard Stalder, the former Secretary of the Department.

The defendants filed a peremptory exception raising the objection of res judicata, asking that the suit against them be dismissed. On September 9, 1999, the 20 Judicial District Court rendered judgment in favor of the defendants and against Mr. Morrison, sustaining the exception and dismissing the suit for habeas corpus and mandamus.

Mr. Morrison appealed that judgment to this court. On September 22, 2000, this court affirmed the trial court's decision sustaining the exception and dismissing Mr. Morrison's suit. See State ex rel. Morrison v. Cain, 99-1722 (La. App. 1 Cir. 9/22/00) (unpublished).

Mr. Morrison thereafter initiated the three-step administrative relief process, asserting that there was no commitment order that authorized the Department to incarcerate him in excess of twenty years. The Department denied relief.

Mr. Morrison then sought judicial review of this denial of relief at the 19^thJudicial District Court, arguing that the life portion of his sentence was never affirmed by the Louisiana Supreme Court, nor was his sentence re-imposed by the district court following its vacation by the supreme court. He named as defendants in the suit Burl Cain, the Warden of Louisiana State Penitentiary, and James M. LeBlanc, the Secretary of the Department.

The defendants filed the entire administrative record into the suit record, as well as a peremptory exception raising the objection of res judicata, asking that the suit against them be dismissed. The defendants argue that Mr. Morrison's instant suit contests the Department's custody of him for the same reasons that were previously litigated in two prior suits.

The 19^th Judicial District Court Commissioner's recommendation, dated November 5, 2013, found that Mr. Morrison's first and second suits (in the 19^th and 20^th Judicial District Courts): were suits for writs of habeas corpus and mandamus; against the same parties; that his "cause" existed at the time of first suit; and that the relief sought by him was the same. In his current suit for administrative relief in the 19^th Judicial District Court, the Commissioner found that Mr. Morrison named the Warden of Angola and the Secretary of the Department as defendants and that the relief sought by him is his immediate release from the Department. Based on his review of the record, the Commissioner recommended that the exception filed by the defendants be sustained and the suit be dismissed.

The 19^th Judicial District Court rendered judgment on December 16, 2013, adopting the Commissioner's Recommendation, denying the claims of Mr. Morrison, and dismissed his suit with prejudice. Mr. Morrison now appeals that judgment, contending that the district court erred in dismissing his petition based upon the commissioner's recommendation.

On appeal, Mr. Morrison makes the following assignments of error:

(1) The district court erred in dismissing his petition for judicial review based on the Department's objection of res judicata because the Department failed to satisfy its burden of proof of proving every essential element of a res judicata claim;³

(2) The district court erred when it failed to address his La. R.S. 13:4232(A)(1) ⁴ claims; and



(3) The district court erred in adopting the Commissioner's Recommendation.

3 We combine Mr. Morrison's first and second assignments of error, as they assert the same claims for relief.

4 There are four exceptions to the general rule barring re-litigation. One is when "exceptional circumstances" justify relief from the res judicata effect of the judgment. Louisiana Revised Statutes 13:4232(A)(1) provides that a judgment does not bar another action by the plaintiff when "exceptional circumstances justify relief from the res judicata effect of the judgment."

LAW AND DISCUSSION

The current action was initially referred to a commissioner for review and screening pursuant to La. R.S. 15:1178 and La. R.S. 15:1188.⁵ The commissioner thoroughly detailed his findings in a report, concluding that the doctrine of res judicata applied to this case. The commissioner recommended that the suit be dismissed. Following its de novo review of the record, the district court adopted the commissioner's recommendation and dismissed Mr. Morrison's action.

5 The office of the commissioner of the 19^th Judicial District Court 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 judge, who may accept, reject, or modify them. La. R.S. 13:713(C)(5).

Louisiana Revised Statutes 13:4231 states, in pertinent part:

Except as otherwise provided by law, a valid and final judgment is conclusive between the same parties, except on appeal or other direct review, to the following extent:




***



(2) If the judgment is in favor of the defendant, all causes of action existing at the time of final judgment arising out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the litigation are extinguished and the judgment bars a subsequent action on those causes of action.

Based on the language of the above statute, the Louisiana Supreme Court has established the following five elements that must be satisfied for a finding that a second action is precluded by res judicata: "(1) the judgment is valid; (2) the judgment is final; (3) the parties are the same; (4) the cause or causes of action asserted in the second suit existed at the time of final judgment in the first litigation; and (5) the cause or causes of action asserted in the second suit arose out of the transaction or occurrence that was the subject matter of the first litigation." See Burguieres v. Pollingue, 2002-1385 (La. 2/25/03), 843 So. 2d 1049, 1053. Since the 1990 amendment to the res judicata statute, the supreme court considers the "chief inquiry" to be "whether the second action asserts a cause of action which arises out of the transaction or occurrence that was the subject matter of the first action." Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. State, 2007-2469 (La. 9/8/08), 993 So. 2d 187, 194.

In this case, the five elements for the application of res judicata, the general rule barring re-litigation, are clearly satisfied. The judgment in the first suit, in the 19 Judicial District Court, is valid, final, and the parties in the first, second, and third and current suit, are the same. Furthermore, the causes of action asserted in the second and current suit existed at the time of final judgment in the first suit and arose out of the transaction or occurrence that was the subject matter of the first suit. Finding that the Commissioner's report and the district court's judgment adequately explain our decision, we affirm the judgment.⁶

6 We pretermit discussion of the remaining assignments of error.
--------

DECREE

We accordingly affirm the judgment of the district court through summary disposition, in accordance with Rules 2-16.2(A)(2), (4), (5), (6), (8), and (10) of the Uniform Rules of the Louisiana Courts of Appeal. All costs of this appeal are assessed to the plaintiff-appellant, Reginald Morrison.

AFFIRMED.