Cedric Dent v. State of Louisiana

• Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
• Decided: August 21, 2025
• Docket: 2025-K-0521
• Status: Published

Opinion

CEDRIC DENT * NO. 2025-K-0521

VERSUS * COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF LOUISIANA * FOURTH CIRCUIT

* STATE OF LOUISIANA

*

* *******

SCJ JENKINS, J., DISSENTS AND ASSIGNS REASONS

I would deny the State of Louisiana’s request for reconsideration of the trial

court’s February 10, 2025 judgment denying its request to stay Mr. Dent’s

wrongful conviction compensation proceedings. This Court and the Supreme Court

denied writs in that matter. See Dent v. State, 2025-K-0118 (La. App. 4 Cir.

2/21/25) and Dent v. State, 2025-00263 (La. 3/12/25), 402 So.3d 1213 (Mem).

The State’s renewed motion to stay Mr. Dent’s August 22, 2025 trial date does not

warrant reconsideration for the reasons that follow.

Subsequent to the denial of the aforementioned writ applications, the

Supreme Court granted supervisory writs to consider the same procedural issue

raised by the State—namely, whether a wrongful conviction compensation

proceeding brought under La. R.S. 15:572.8 should be stayed pending the

conclusion of a parallel federal action civil rights action based on the same

prosecution.1 However, the majority’s suggestion that a stay of Mr. Dent’s trial is

warranted to avoid “inconsistent outcomes, to preserve judicial resources, and to

maintain procedural parity. . .” is misplaced.

1 On July 31, 2025, Supreme Court granted supervisory writs in Williams v. State, 2025-KK-

0688. 1 Mr. Dent’s federal 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 civil rights complaint against the

Orleans Parish District Attorney’s Office (OPDA) and District Attorney Jason R.

Williams, in his official capacity, alleges the OPDA violated his constitutional

rights by suppressing Brady material. In order to recover, Mr. Dent has to prove

the OPDA’s conduct deprived Mr. Dent of his constitutional rights. In contrast, to

recover in a state wrongful conviction compensation action, Mr. Dent has to prove

his factual innocence by clear and convincing evidence.2 The federal and the state

claims present different causes of action and different evidentiary standards of

proof. Mr. Dent’s ability to prevail in the state action does not hinge on the

outcome of the federal proceedings. The federal proceedings have no impact on

Mr. Dent’s state proceedings. Similarly, Mr. Dent’s wrongful conviction

compensation claim in state court is not dependent on his cause of action in federal

court.

Moreover, the majority fails to demonstrate any irreparable harm or a denial

of fundamental fairness to the State in the event Mr. Dent is allowed to proceed

with his action pending resolution of Williams v. State, 2025-KK-0688. Indeed,

the only actual harm that may be incurred is by Mr. Dent who will be abruptly

denied his day in court on a matter previously decided as to Mr. Dent by this Court

and the Supreme Court.

Under these circumstances, I find no reason to stay Mr. Dent’s imminent

trial date pending resolution of this procedural matter. Accordingly, I dissent and

would deny the State’s writ application.

2 Louisiana Revised Statute 15:572.8(A)(2) permits compensation for wrongful conviction and

imprisonment where ‘[t]he petitioner has proven by clear and convincing evidence that he is factually innocent of the crime for which he was convicted.” 2