State v. Cordero
| Decision Date | 03 October 2008 |
| Docket Number | No. 2008-KH-1717.,2008-KH-1717. |
| Citation | 993 So.2d 203 |
| Parties | STATE of Louisiana v. Sandra CORDERO. |
| Court | Louisiana Supreme Court |
Petitioner complains in her application that the internal operating procedures of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal effectively deprived her of supervisory review of a district court judgment denying her post-conviction relief in 2001 and resulted in an order from the court of appeal which did not conform to the requirements of La. Const. art. V, § 8(B). Cordero v. Jones, Warden, 01-1085 (La.9/20/02) (Dufresne, Cannella, Edwards, JJ.; Dufresne, J., for the court), writ denied, 01-3017 (La.9/20/02), 825 So.2d 1167. The application asks for various forms of relief, including merits review of her claims originally presented in her 2001 application.
This Court has received several hundred applications raising similar claims and asking for similar relief filed by petitioners whose pro se applications were denied by the Fifth Circuit from February 8, 1994 to May 21, 2007. (See 08-KH-1718 through 08-KH-1726; 08-KH-1729 through 08-KH-1730; 08-KH-1732 through 08-KH-1734; 08-KH-1736 through 08-KH-1743; 08-KH-1748 through 08-KH-1755; 08-KH-1757 through 08-KH-1766; 08-KH-1770 through 08-KH-1802; 08-KH-1804 through 08-KH-1813; 08-KH-1816 through 08-KH-1818; 08-KH-1821 through 08-KH-1823; 08-KH-1825 through 08-KH-1844; 08-KH-1846; 08-KH-1848 through 08-KH-1854; 08-KH-1856 through 08-KH-1862; 08-KH-1866 through 08-KH-1878; 08-KH-1880; 08-KH-1882 through 08-KH-1884; 08-KH-1886 through 08-KH-1889; 08-KH-1891 through 08-KH-1892; 08-KH-1904 through 08-KH-1910; 08-KH-1913 through 08-KH-1925; 08-KH-1930 through 08-KH-1938; 08-KH-1941 through 08-KH-1946; 08-KH-1948; 08-KH-1952 through 08-KH-1954; 08-KH-2002; 08-KH-2004 through 08-KH-2009; 08-KH-2015 through 08-KH-2017; 08-KH 2028 through 08-KH-2033; 08-KH-2043; 08-KH-2047 through 08-KH-2054; 08-KH-2056; 08-KH-2061; 08-KH-2063 through 08-KH-2065; 08-KH-2067 through 08-KH-2069; 08-KH 2071 through 08-KH-2074; 08-KH 2083; 08-KH-2087 through 08-KH-2089; 08-KH-2091 through 08-KH-2093; 08-KH-2110 through 08-KH-2112; 08-KH 2116; 08-KH-2120 through 08-KH-2121; 08-KH-2206; 08-KH-2216 through 08-KH-2219; 08-KH-2221 through 08-KH-2222; 08-KH-2234 through 08-KH-2239; 08-KH-2241; 08-KH-2269 through 08-KH-2270; 08-KH-2272 through 08-KH-2277; 08-KH-2280 through 08-KH-2286; 08-KH-2298; 08-KH-2300; 08-KH-2305 through 08-KH-2308; 08-KH-2322 through 08-KH-2324; 08-KH-2326 through 08-KH-2328; 08-KH-2332 through 08-KH-2333; 08-KH-2360 through 08-KH-2361; 08-KH-2369; 08-KH-2372 through 08-KH-2381; and 08-KH-2384.)
We have also received from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal an en banc resolution unanimously adopted by that court on September 9, 2008, recommending that this Court transfer all of these applications to the court of appeal for random allotment to a panel of three judges drawn from five judges on that court, Chehardy, McManus, Wicker, Guidry, JJ., and Jasmine, Pro Tem. The en banc resolution also sets out internal procedures designed to promote completely independent review by the randomly-selected panels.
Therefore, in accordance with the Resolution of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal en banc, the application of Sandra Cordero is herewith transferred to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal for consideration according to the procedures outlined in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal's en banc resolution of September 9, 2008. These three-judge panels are to be insulated from all persons, other than the panel judges and their respective personal staffs. This Court also determines that the applications presently filed and pending in this Court by petitioners, raising similar claims and enumerated hereinabove should also be handled in accordance with the procedures outlined in this Order and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal's en banc resolution of September 9, 2008. Further, this Court also determines under its supervisory authority that the applications presently filed and pending in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal by those petitioners who raise similar claims should also be handled in accordance with the procedures outlined in this Order and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal's en banc resolution of September 9, 2008.
A copy of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal's en banc resolution of September 9, 2008 and a list of the similar applications to be transferred by this Court shortly to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal in separate actions are appended to this Order.
WEIMER, J., dissents and assigns reasons.
KIMBALL, J., concurs in denial of rehearing and assigns reasons, joined by VICTORY, TRAYLOR and KNOLL, JJ.
JOHNSON and WEIMER, JJ., would grant rehearing.
A quorum of the Judges being present, the meeting was called to order on September 9, 2008, by Chief Judge Edward A. Dufresne, Jr.
The Chief Judge distributed a Resolution which was reviewed and discussed by all. Following this discussion the Resolution was amended, the amendments discussed and the Resolution, as amended, was called for a vote. The Resolution (See Exhibit "A"), was moved by J. Edwards and seconded by J. Wicker and passed unanimously.
The provisions of the Resolution will not be implemented until acted upon by the Supreme Court. This too was approved by this court en banc.
The next en banc meeting is scheduled for September 16, 2008.
9-9-2008
DATE
9-9-2008
DATE
/s/ Walter J. Rothschild
JUDGE WALTER J. ROTHSCHILD
RECORDING JUDGE
/s/ Edward A. Dufresne, Jr
CHIEF JUDGE EDWARD A. DUFRESNE
JR
APPROVED BY
RESOLUTION
Recommend to the Supreme Court the following possible solution to the Pro-Se Criminal Writ applications complaining that earlier applications by those same applicants had received inadequate review by this Court.
First, we are proposing that you consider remanding each of the current applications in your court to this court with direction that they be assigned to respective three-judge panels randomly selected from five judges of this court; namely, Judges Chehardy, McManus, Wicker, Guidry and Pro Tempore Jasmine who incidentally have had no hand in the process by which this court earlier handled these multiple applicants' earlier writs in this court.
Under this proposal, the applications will be controlled, handled and considered only by those five judges and such members of their respective personal staffs selected by them as a group, and as approved by the respective panels. Furthermore, none of the other three judges on this court will be involved in any way in consideration of the work of the three-judge panels, or conversant in any way with the five-panel judges to be assigned to handle these cases and their respective personal staff members which the five judges alone will choose to have assist them.
We are guided in this request by a desire to avoid imposing; financial or other burdens on other judges in this state who might otherwise be called upon to consider these cases out of our court.
Above Resolution adopted this 9th day of September, 2008 at an En Banc Meeting of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal.
08-KH-1717 State ex rel. Sandra Cordero v. State
08-KH-1718 State ex rel. Jamie Simmons v. State
08-KH-1719 State ex rel. Dessie Tucker v. State
08-KH-1720 State ex rel. Kim Jackson v. State
08-KH-1721 State ex rel. Wesley Guillard v. State
08-KH-1722 State ex rel. Leo Pineyro v. State
08-KH-1723 State ex rel. Theodore Mathis v. State
08-KH-1724 State ex rel. Antoinette Holmes v. State
08-KH-1725 State ex rel. Kenneth A. Edwards v. State
08-KH-1726 State ex rel. Edna Gibson v. State
08-KH-1729 State ex rel. Rhonda K. Oliver v. State
08-KH-1730 State ex rel. Dwayne Simms v. State
08-KH-1732 State ex rel. Castadell Ruffin v. State
08-KH-1733 State ex rel. Michael Brown v. State 08-KH-1734 State ex rel. Alexander Hymes v. State
08-KH-1736 State ex rel. Carolyn Lee Moore v. State
08-KH-1737 State ex rel. Zannie Neal v. State
08-KH-1738 State ex rel. Jimmie D. Sprinkle v. State
08-KH-1739 State ex rel. Dwayne Lee Rodrigues v. State
08-KH-1740 State ex rel. David Patterson v. State
08-KH-1741 State ex rel. Melvin Faucheaux v. State
08-KH-1742 State ex rel. Clarence Williams v. State
08-KH-1743 State ex rel. Claude Quest v. State
08-KH-1748 State ex rel. Michael Wilson v. State
08-KH-1749 State ex rel. Glen Styles v. State
08-KH-1750 State ex rel. Cathy Johnson v. State
08-KH-1751 State ex rel. Leon Williams Jr. v. State
08-KH-1752 State ex rel. James Flowers v. State
08-KH-1753 State ex rel. Larry Harris v. State
08-KH-1754 State ex rel. Jimmie Level Jr. v. State
08-KH-1755 State ex rel. Derrick Estes v. State
08-KH-1757 State ex rel. Stanley C. Veal v. State
08-KH-1758 State ex rel. David Boudreaux v. State
08-KH-1760 State ex rel. Johnny Luna v. State
08-KH-1761 State ex rel. Terri Revere v. State
08-KH-1762 State ex rel. Bertha Lawrence v. State
08-KH-1763 State ex rel. Helen Lane v. State
08-KH-1764 State ex rel. Van D. Hudson v. State
08-KH-1765 State ex rel. Joseph Wiggins v. State
08-KH-1766 State ex rel. April George v. State
08-KH-1770 State ex rel. Rannell Craig v. State
08-KH-1771 State ex rel. Carrie Bell v. State
08-KH-1772 State ex rel. Charlonda Hymes v. State
08-KH-1773 State ex rel. Melvin Frank v. State
08-KH-1774 State ex rel. Linroy Douglas v. State
08-KH-1775 State ex rel. Payton Funchess v. State
08-KH-1776 State ex rel. Eric Hurst v. State
08-KH-1777 State ex rel. Walter Bailey v. State
08-KH-1778 State ex rel. Derrick Chairs v. State
08-KH-1779 State ex rel. Cedrick Washington v. State...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lewis v. Louisiana
...panels comprised of judges who were not involved in the decision to adopt the process utilized by Peterson. See State v. Cordero, 993 So. 2d 203, 205-06 (La. 2008). The Court's research reveals that Lewis filed a writ application with the Louisiana Supreme Court which was denied on November......
-
Dennis v. Louisiana, CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-2780 SECTION "S"(2)
...seeking reconsideration of his prior pro se post-conviction writ application in the Louisiana Fifth Circuit pursuant to State v. Cordero, 993 So.2d 203 (La. 2008).24 Per the Cordero procedures, the writ application was transferred to the Louisiana Fifth Circuit on December 18, 2009, where i......
-
Thomas v. Tanner
...Thomas filed a writ application, Writ 08-KH-2280, with the Louisiana Supreme Court, in light of that court's ruling in State v. Cordero, 993 So.2d 203 (La. 2008).12 On October 10, 2008, the Louisiana Supreme Court transferred Thomas' application to the Louisiana Court of Appeal, Fifth Circu......
-
State v. Evans
...Supreme Court, which transferred it to this Court on October 18, 2008, with instructions to consider it under State v. Cordero, XXXX-XXXX (La.10/03/08), 993 So.2d 203. The transferred application was lodged in this Court under case number 08-KH-651, consolidated with number 08-WR-1001. We o......