Opinion
No. 2009 CA 0547.
October 23, 2009.
APPEALED FROM THE 19TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR THE PARISH OF EAST BATON ROUGE, LOUISIANA TRIAL COURT NO. 566,084 HONORABLE R. MICHAEL CALDWELL, JUDGE.
LAN TRAN, KINDER, LA, IN PROPER PERSON.
JONATHAN R. VINING, BATON ROUGE, LA, ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLEE, JAMES M. LeBLANC.
BEFORE: CARTER, C.J., GUIDRY, AND PETTIGREW, JJ.
In this case, petitioner, an inmate in the custody of the Department of Public Safety and Corrections ("DPSC"), filed a request for relief pursuant to La.R.S. 15:1177, seeking judicial review of the final agency decision rendered under Administrative Remedy Procedure No. ALC-2007-1109. In said case, petitioner alleged the trial court did not actually impose a 40-year manslaughter sentence following his August 19, 2003 Boykin hearing under Vermillion Parish Docket No. 37931. Petitioner argued that he did not agree to a 40-year term as part of his plea agreement and that his plea was not knowingly and intelligently entered. DPSC responded that the plea agreement in the record indicates that petitioner acknowledged he could receive a sentence of up to 40 years as a result of his plea. DPSC further noted the sentencing court forwarded commitment documents indicating that a 40-year term was imposed and that DPSC is required to carry out that sentence.
After considering the administrative record, including a transcript of the Boykin hearing, the Commissioner noted it did not have jurisdiction to review a challenge to the validity of petitioner's plea or sentence, but rather it could only review the issue of whether DPSC was carrying out the sentence imposed by the trial court. Thus, the Commissioner concluded, the final agency decision rendered by DPSC should be affirmed and petitioner's request for judicial review dismissed, with prejudice.
Following a de novo review of the record herein, including the traversal by petitioner and the Commissioner's Report, the trial court rendered judgment dismissing, with prejudice, petitioner's suit as recommended by the Commissioner. This appeal by petitioner followed. After a thorough review of the record and relevant jurisprudence, we find no error of law or abuse of discretion by the trial court. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's judgment by summary disposition in accordance with Uniform Rules-Courts of Appeal, Rule 2-16.2A(5), (6), (7), and (8). All costs associated with this appeal are assessed against petitioner, Lan Tran.