STATE OF LOUISIANA NO. 24-KH-515 VERSUS FIFTH CIRCUIT EDDIE J. ARMANT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF LOUISIANA

November 14, 2024 Linda Wiseman First Deputy Clerk

IN RE EDDIE J. ARMANT APPLYING FOR SUPERVISORY WRIT FROM THE TWENTY-THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF ST JAMES, STATE OF LOUISIANA, DIRECTED TO THE HONORABLE JASON VERDIGETS, DIVISION "A", NUMBER 2584

Panel composed of Judges Jude G. Gravois, Marc E. Johnson, and Scott U. Schlegel

WRIT OF MANDAMUS GRANTED IN PART; DENIED IN PART Relator, Eddie J. Armant, filed a petition for writ of mandamus asking this Court to order the trial court to “sign the order” included with his “Notice of Intent to Appeal Under Uniform Rules, Courts of Appeal Rules 4-2 and 4-3” (“Notice of Intent”). Relator indicates that he filed the Notice of Intent because he intends to seek review of the trial court’s denial of his “Second or Subsequent Uniform Application for Postconviction Relief.” Relator also asks for the appointment of a Louisiana Supreme Court justice to sit on the panel conducting the review, “due to the unusual and bias (sic) actions of the 23rd Judicial District Court.”

According to the online record, relator’s APCR was filed on November 15, 2022. The trial court denied the APCR as repetitive pursuant to La. C.Cr.P. art. 930.4 on November 22nd, but it did not fill in the year of its decision in the space provided on the APCR form. Therefore, we cannot determine if the trial court ruled on the APCR in 2022 or 2023. In addition, the order denying the APCR in the online record contains a notation, “Received From Judge 2/5/24,” and further indicates that notice of the ruling was sent “Via Regular Mail” on February 8, 2024.

Relator contends that after he received the ruling, he submitted a request on February 29, 2024, to the business office at Hunt Correctional Center to withdraw funds and mail his Notice of Intent to the 23rd Judicial District Court Clerk of Court.1 Relator provides a receipt indicating that the correctional center processed The actual date of filing for pleadings filed by inmates is the date the pleading is delivered to the prison authorities. State v. Nevers-Hawkins, 18-352, p. 2 (La. App. 5 Cir. 8/30/18), 2018 WL 4171728. relator’s request on March 4, 2024. The online record does not contain a copy of relator’s Notice of Intent.2 Therefore, we are unable to determine whether the trial court ever set a return date on relator’s Notice of Intent.3 Based on the receipt provided by relator indicating that the Notice of Intent was mailed to the 23rd Judicial District Court Clerk of Court, we grant relator’s request for mandamus relief in part, transfer relator’s Notice of Intent to the trial court for consideration, and instruct the trial court to rule on relator’s Notice of Intent by setting a 30-day return date for relator to file an application for supervisory review with this Court. We deny relator’s writ of mandamus to the extent he requests the appointment of a Louisiana Supreme Court justice.

Gretna, Louisiana, this 14th day of November, 2024.

SUS JGG MEJ

A copy of the Notice of Intent and mailing receipt provided with the writ application are attached to this ruling to assist with the identification of the document.

We recognize that relator’s Notice of Intent is somewhat confusing as it contains language indicating his intent to seek supervisory review, but the proposed order does not include language asking for a return date to file a writ application. Instead, the proposed order contains language asking the trial court to grant an appeal, to appoint the appellate project to represent relator, and to set a return date for the lodging of the record with this Court. There is no right of appeal from a judgment denying an application for post- conviction relief; the proper procedure for this claim is by application for supervisory writ. State v. Johnson, 98-650 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2/10/99), 729 So.2d 55, 56. But pro se filings are subject to less stringent standards than formal pleadings filed by lawyers. Benoit v. Guerin, 22-547 (La. App. 5 Cir. 1/18/23), 357 So.3d 434, 441, writ denied, 23-250 (La. 6/7/23), 361 So.3d 966, citing State ex rel. Egana v. State, 00-2351 (La. 9/22/00), 771 So.2d 638. A pro se petitioner is not to be denied access to the courts for review of his case on the merits by the overzealous application of form and pleading requirements or hyper-technical interpretations of court rules. Id. SUSAN M. CHEHARDY CURTIS B. PURSELL CHIEF JUDGE CLERK OF COURT

SUSAN S. BUCHHOLZ FREDERICKA H. WICKER CHIEF DEPUTY CLERK JUDE G. GRAVOIS MARC E. JOHNSON STEPHEN J. WINDHORST LINDA M. WISEMAN JOHN J. MOLAISON, JR. FIRST DEPUTY CLERK SCOTT U. SCHLEGEL TIMOTHY S. MARCEL FIFTH CIRCUIT MELISSA C. LEDET JUDGES 101 DERBIGNY STREET (70053) DIRECTOR OF CENTRAL STAFF POST OFFICE BOX 489 GRETNA, LOUISIANA 70054 (504) 376-1400 (504) 376-1498 FAX www.fifthcircuit.org

NOTICE OF DISPOSITION CERTIFICATE OF DELIVERY I CERTIFY THAT A COPY OF THE DISPOSITION IN THE FOREGOING MATTER HAS BEEN TRANSMITTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH UNIFORM RULES - COURT OF APPEAL, RULE 4-6 THIS DAY 11/14/2024 TO THE TRIAL JUDGE, THE TRIAL COURT CLERK OF COURT, AND AT LEAST ONE OF THE COUNSEL OF RECORD FOR EACH PARTY, AND TO EACH PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL, AS LISTED BELOW:

24-KH-515 E-NOTIFIED 23rd Judicial District Court (Clerk) Hon. Jason Verdigets (DISTRICT JUDGE) No Attorney(s) were ENOTIFIED MAILED Eddie J. Armant #150261 (Relator) Honorable Ricky L. Babin (Respondent) Elayn Hunt Correctional Center District Attorney 6925 Highway 74 Post Office Box 66 St. Gabriel, LA 70776 Convent, LA 70737