liWe granted defendant’s application for a writ, of certiorari in this case on December 16, 2016. After receiving briefing from the parties and reviewing the record of the matter, we conclude the judgment below does not require the exercise of this court’s supervisory authority. Accordingly, we recall our order of December 16, 2016 as improvidently granted, and we, deny the writ application.,

dissenting.

ItAs a matter of prudent court practice, I disagree with the majority’s decision to recall the writ. I havepreviously. explained:

In the past, I have voted to recall writs, but I have come to the conclusion this is a poor ’practice. See State v. Crandell, 05-1060 (La. 3/10/06), 924 So.2d 122 (Weimer, J., dissenting: “[A]f-*947ter having granted the writ, the unique facts and circumstances of this case dictate that we should resolve this matter on the merits.”). As a more recent example of my view, see Davis v. Prescott, 13-0669 (La. 11/5/13), 130 So.3d 849, 851 (Weimer, J., dissenting: “I respectfully dissent from the majority’s decision to recall the writ. Having granted the writ, I would resolve this case on the merits based on the issues and the record before this court.”).

George v. Dugas, 16-0710, p. 2 n.1 (La. 11/7/16), 203 So.3d 1043, 1043 n.1 (Weimer, J., dissenting).

After this court granted the writ in this matter, the parties have researched the issues, prepared briefs, and attended oral argument-all no doubt done at considerable expense in time, effort, and financial resources. Considering all this was done at this court’s direction after granting the writ, I believe -the parties deserve and are entitled to an answer on the merits from this court. Thus, I respectfully dissent from the decision .to recall the writ.