Derrick Everfield v. Madison Parish Clerk of Court Office

• Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
• Decided: February 26, 2025
• Docket: 56,092-CA
• Status: Published

Opinion

Judgment rendered February 26, 2025. Application for rehearing may be filed within the delay allowed by Art. 2166, La. C.C.P.

No. 56,092-CA

COURT OF APPEAL SECOND CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA

*****

DERRICK EVERFIELD Plaintiff-Appellant

versus

MADISON PARISH CLERK OF Defendant-Appellee COURT OFFICE, ET AL.

Appealed from the Sixth Judicial District Court for the Parish of Madison, Louisiana Trial Court No. 202483

Honorable Angela Lynn Claxton, Judge

DERRICK EVERFIELD In Proper Person, Appellant

BISHOP, PAXTON, CRIGLER, Counsel for Appellee & MOBERLEY, APLC By: James E. Paxton

Before STONE, HUNTER AND ELLENDER, JJ. STONE, J.

This appeal arises from the Sixth Judicial District Court, the

Honorable Angela Claxton presiding. The appellant, Derrick Everfield,

(“Everfield”), filed a petition for a writ of mandamus requesting a copy of

the minutes showing or recording the grand jury vote for his indictment.

The trial court denied Everfield’s petition and Everfield appeals asserting

three assignments of error. After review, however, we determine that there

is only one issue before this court: whether the trial court abused its

discretion in denying Everfield’s petition for writ of mandamus.

FACTS

On September 26, 1996, a Madison Parish Grand Jury indicted

Everfield, charging him with aggravated kidnapping and other related

crimes.1 He was thereafter convicted of all charges and has since been

incarcerated at the Louisiana State Penitentiary serving a life sentence at

hard labor without benefits.

In January 2024, nearly 30 years after his indictment and conviction,

Everfield requested a copy of his true bill of information revealing the

individual vote of the grand jury members. Months later, in May, Everfield

filed a petition for a writ of mandamus against the Madison Parish Clerk of

Court (“the Clerk”) alleging that he had not received a response to his

request. However, records indicate that in February 2024, the deputy clerk

sent a copy of the following documents:

1. Indictment and all annotations in document No. 78778;

1 In docket No. 78778, Everfield was indicted for first degree murder, aggravated kidnapping, armed robbery, and aggravated burglary of a dwelling. 2. Grand Jury charge that Derrick Everfield committed aggravated

kidnapping of Emma Watson, signed by the District Attorney;

3. Report of the Grand Jury of Madison signed by Charlynne Paxton, the

foreman, which indicated that a true bill had been returned against

Derrick Everfield for the first degree murder of Charlie Weston,

aggravated kidnapping of Charlie Weston, and aggravated kidnapping

of Emma Watson; and,

4. Minutes of the grand jury report to the Court on September 26, 1996,

as certified by Deb Gilbert, Deputy Clerk of Court, approved by the

Honorable Judge John D. Crigler.

The Clerk filed an answer to Everfield’s petition wherein it

acknowledged receipt of his January 2024 request. In further answering —

and for a second time — the Clerk attached the documents enumerated

above.

The trial court denied Everfield’s petition for writ of mandamus,

noting that the Clerk provided all the information in the Clerk’s care,

custody, and control relative to his request. From this decision, Everfield

appeals.

DISCUSSION

In each of his assignments of error, Everfield asserts that the trial

court erred in denying his petition for a writ of mandamus, arguing that the

Clerk denied him access to his true bill of information and violated his due

process and equal protection rights by failing to record the vote count of the

grand jury members. Specifically, Everfield alleges that the Clerk erred by

failing to record the number of grand juror votes to indict him, and by failing

2 to note how individual members voted (i.e. “yea” or “nay”) in the clerk

minutes.

In response, the Clerk argues that pursuant to the petition, Everfield

was provided all relevant information regarding his indictment as he

requested; moreover, that the clerk does not have any other documentation

to supplement Everfield’s request. Simply put, there is nothing else.

The public’s right of access to public records is a fundamental right

guaranteed by the Louisiana Constitution. La. Const. art. XII, § 3. That right

of access must be liberally construed in favor of free and unrestricted access,

which can only be denied when a law specifically and unequivocally

provides otherwise. Pardee v. Connick, 18-718 (La. App. 5 Cir. 3/15/19),

267 So. 3d 179.

Providing access to public records is the responsibility and duty of the

custodian and his employees, who shall present any public record to any

person of the age of majority who so requests, except as otherwise provided

in the Public Records Law. See La. R.S. 44:31, 44:32(A). An individual in

custody after sentence following a felony conviction who has exhausted his

appellate remedies is permitted access to public records if the request is

limited to grounds upon which the individual could file for post-conviction

relief under La. C. Cr. P. art. 930.3. La. R.S. 44:31.1. However, nothing in

La. R.S. 44:31.1 prevents an inmate from seeking records related to his

conviction simply because the period for filing for post-conviction relief has

passed. State ex rel. Leonard v. State, 96-1889 (La. 6/13/97), 695 So. 2d

1325. Under La. R.S. 44:35(A), a person who has been denied the right to

inspect, copy, reproduce, or obtain a copy or reproduction of a public record

may institute proceedings for the issuance of a writ of mandamus, injunctive, 3 or declaratory relief, together with attorney’s fees, costs, and damages.

Joseph v. Jefferson Par. Clerk of Court Office, 23-532 (La. App. 5 Cir.

5/29/24), 390 So. 3d 447, reh’g denied (June 17, 2024), writ denied, 2024-

00911 (La. 10/23/24), 395 So. 3d 252.

A writ of mandamus may be directed to a public officer to compel the

performance of a ministerial duty required by law to compel the delivery of

papers and effects of the office to his successor. La. C. C. P. art. 3863. A

writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy, to be applied where ordinary

means fail to afford adequate relief. Hoag v. State, 04-0857, p. 6 (La.

12/01/04), 889 So. 2d 1019, 1023. Lewis v. Morrell, 16-1055 (La. App. 4

Cir. 4/5/17), 215 So. 3d 737. An appellate court reviews a district court’s

judgment denying a writ of mandamus under an abuse of discretion

standard. Lewis v. Morrell, supra.

It is a long-established policy that the secrecy of grand jury

proceedings should be carefully maintained; however, this secrecy is not

absolute. State v. Ross, 13-175 (La. 3/25/14), 144 So. 3d 932, 937.

Louisiana grand jury secrecy laws expressly allow for the disclosure of state

grand jury materials in limited situations. See La. C. Cr. P. arts. 434 and

434.1. Outside of those situations, a party seeking disclosure of state grand

jury materials must show a compelling necessity for the materials. Ross,

supra.

In this case, the Clerk provided Everfield with all documents relevant

to his initial request, and a second time in its answer to the petition.

Jurisprudence makes clear that to trigger the right to a mandamus remedy,

there must be a failure of a custodian to respond. No such failure occurred

here and Everfield has not presented anything to the contrary. The report of 4 the grand jury signed by the foreman, which indicated that a true bill had

been returned against him for his criminal case, was included in the

documents provided to Everfield. There is no provision or exception in the

law that requires individual grand jurors to be named — or their votes to be

specified — for the purpose of identifying a true bill of information. All that

is required is that the record reflect that a quorum was present and that a true

bill was signed and filed by the grand jury foreman. Everfield’s indictment

was certified, signed, and approved by all the appropriate parties, thereby

showing legitimacy of his true bill of information as required by law.

Everfield’s arguments are without merit.

Based on our review, we find no abuse of the trial court’s discretion in

denying Everfield’s petition for a writ of mandamus.

CONCLUSION

For the aforementioned reasons, the trial court judgment is

AFFIRMED, with costs assessed to Everfield in accordance with La. C. C.

P. arts. 5186 and 5186.