NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT
KA 19-679
STATE OF LOUISIANA
VERSUS
MICHAEL JOSEPH MAYEAUX
**********
APPEAL FROM THE TWELFTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF AVOYELLES, NO. 186,900 A HONORABLE KERRY LYNDON SPRUILL, DISTRICT JUDGE
D. KENT SAVOIE JUDGE
Court composed of Billy Howard Ezell, Shannon J. Gremillion, and D. Kent Savoie, Judges.
AFFIRMED.
EZELL, J., concurs. Charles A. Riddle, III District Attorney, 12th JDC P. O. Box 1200 Marksville, LA 71351 (318) 253-6587 COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE: State of Louisiana
Edward Kelly Bauman La Appellate Project P. O. Box 1641 Lake Charles, LA 70602-1641 (337) 491-0570 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT: Michael Joseph Mayeaux SAVOIE, Judge.
Defendant, Michael Joseph Mayeaux, committed the September 13, 2016
murders of his grandparents, Eloise “Patti” and Hilman “T-Coon” Mayeaux. He was
arrested on two counts of first degree murder. On September 26, 2016, prior to
indictment, Defendant made preliminary filings in the trial court, namely a notice of
enrollment and limited scope of representation, an assertion of constitutional rights,
and a motion to preserve evidence and the crime scene. The indictment, filed on
October 27, 2016, charged Defendant with two counts of second degree murder,
violations of La.R.S. 14:30.1.
On November 2, 2016, Defendant pled not guilty to the charges. He withdrew
his plea and pled not guilty and not guilty by reason of insanity on January 17, 2017.
On the same date, the trial court appointed a Sanity Commission composed of Dr.
L.J. Mayeux and Dr. John Simoneaux to evaluate Defendant and report on his
competency to proceed and whether or not he was sane at the time of the commission
of the alleged offenses.
On May 15, 2017, after reviewing reports of the Sanity Commission, the trial
court issued an Order finding Defendant lacked mental capacity to understand the
proceedings against him or to assist in his defense. The Order further committed
Defendant to the custody of the Louisiana Department of Health and Eastern
Louisiana Mental Health System in Jackson, Louisiana.
On October 30, 2017, Dr. Mayeux submitted a second report to the trial court
indicating that, after reviewing reports of Defendant’s treatment over the past
months and the opinions of staff at Eastern Louisiana Mental Health System, he was
now of the opinion that Defendant possessed the requisite mental capacity to proceed
to trial and assist counsel in his defense. That opinion was based on the October 20, 2017 report of evaluating psychiatrists, Dr. David Hale and Dr. Sanket Vyas, which
indicated Defendant had “a rational as well as a factual understanding of the
proceedings against him/her and has a sufficient present ability to consult with
his/her lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding.”
On June 19, 2018, Defendant filed a Motion for Sanity Commission to
Evaluate Defendant’s State of Mind at the Time of the Alleged Offense, noting that
the reports of Drs. Mayeux and Simoneaux and the Jackson facility failed to address
that issue. The trial court signed an Order stating:
IT IS ORDERED that this Honorable Court order and appoint a sanity commission specifically to address and evaluate [Defendant’s] state of mind at the time of the commission of the abovementioned offense or in the alternative, that if this Honorable Court should deny this Motion . . . , that the experts appointed in the initial sanity commission be ordered to re-evaluate and render an opinion on defendant’s state of mind at the time of the offense, or that the District Attorney show cause on the 19 day of July, 2018, at 9:00 o’clock a.m. why relief prayed for in the defendant’s Motion . . . should not be granted.
On August 3, 2019, Defendant filed a Motion to Vacate Finding of
Competency and alternative Motion for Sanity Commission. Therein, Defendant
noted the trial court’s ruling on January 24, 2018, that Defendant was competent to
stand trial, and argued that the Sanity Commission doctors’ opinions relied upon by
the trial court were not based upon their independent evaluations, but rather only on
reports from Eastern Louisiana Mental Health System. The trial court thereafter
rendered an Order the same date setting Defendant’s motion for hearing on August
8, 2018.
On August 8, 2018, the District Attorney filed a Motion and Order
Appointing Sanity Commission, which was signed by the trial court. The Order
appointed a Sanity Commission composed of Dr. Mayeux and Dr. Simoneaux, who
2 were to re-examine Defendant and report to the trial court on his competency to
proceed and whether he was sane at the time of the commission of the offenses.
Thereafter, Dr. Simoneaux evaluated Defendant on August 23, 2018, and
issued a report indicating that Defendant understood the proceedings against him
and was able to assist in his defense. Additionally, the report stated Defendant had
“the capacity to communicate facts and to relate to his lawyer.”
On August 30, 2018, the District Attorney filed another Motion and Order
Appointing Sanity Commission, which was signed by the trial court. It ordered the
appointment of a Sanity Commission composed solely of Dr. Mayeux, who was to
re-examine Defendant and report to the trial court on his competency to proceed and
whether he was sane at the time of the commission of the offenses.
Dr. Mayeux then issued a report August 31, 2018, indicating Defendant knew
he was charged with the murders of his grandparents. Dr. Mayeux noted Defendant
had indicated to him that his grandfather had been shot, even though that information
was not public at that time. That, coupled with Defendant’s hiding in a closet after
the murders, led to Dr. Mayeux’s belief that those factors supported a finding of
Defendant’s sanity. Dr. Mayeaux’s report further indicated that Defendant knew the
identity of his attorney and had met with him. The report also noted that Defendant
told Dr. Mayeux he understood the severity of the crimes, how the judicial system
works, and that he knew Dr. Simoneaux had categorized him as being sane and able
to proceed in the litigation.
Dr. Mayeux’s August 31, 2018 report further noted, “On [Defendant’s] own
admission he states he does not think he is insane.” It reflected that Defendant
realized the severity of the charges and understood “he could be in jail for the
remainder of his life.” Dr. Mayeux opined that Defendant would be able to take the
3 witness stand to answer questions and to assist his attorney in his defense. He further
indicated that he agreed with Dr. Simoneaux’s testing and results and with his
determination that Defendant “is sane and suffers from no mental disorders.” Dr.
Mayeux concluded Defendant was sane at the time he committed the crimes and had
normal organizational skills. He also concluded Defendant “knows right from
wrong and is able to assist in his defense.” Dr. Mayeux also noted that Defendant’s
Tourette’s Syndrome “has no correlation to sanity[,]” and that Defendant showed no
remorse for the crimes of which he was accused.
On October 15, 2018, Defendant filed a Motion to Transfer to Correct
Division of Court, seeking to transfer the matter from Division A to Division B.
Therein, Defendant stated that the matter had initially been assigned to Division B
on September 27, 2016; but that on October 27, 2016, the Bill of Indictment reflected
the name of Judge Spruill, who presided over Division A. Thereafter, the matter
proceeded in Division A. The trial court denied the Motion on October 16, 2018, and
Defendant sought supervisory writs with this court. This court denied Defendant’s
writ application on October 26, 2018. State v. Mayeaux, 18-856 (La.App. 3 Cir.
10/26/18) (unpublished opinion).
The matter proceeded to jury trial beginning October 29, 2018. Prior to the
conclusion of trial, Defendant’s counsel sought a continuance and/or recess to allow
time to obtain Defendant’s records from Crossroads/Longleaf Mental Hospital,
which he argued he was not aware of until the testimony of Defendant’s mother,
Jeanette Mayeaux. The trial court denied the motion.
A unanimous jury found Defendant guilty as charged on both counts on
November 1, 2018. The trial court sentenced him to two sentences of life
imprisonment at hard labor without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of
4 sentences to run consecutively to each other and to any other previously-imposed
sentence on December 18, 2018. The trial judge strongly recommended
“appropriate psychiatric medical treatment during [Defendant’s] incarceration, if
available.”
Defendant filed a motion for new trial on November 15, 2018, alleging that
newly discovered evidence was disclosed on the day before the trial concluded.
However, court minutes indicate the trial court ordered “that the motion is hereby
vacated and withdrawn pursuant to oral motion” by Defendant’s counsel.
Defendant now seeks review of his convictions and sentences. He asserts the
following as assignments of error:
I. The trial court erred in failing to transfer Michael Mayeaux’s case to the correct division of court.
II. The trial court erred in failing to grant a continuance when it was only discovered the last day of trial that Michael Mayeaux was a patient at Crossroads/Longleaf Mental Hospital.
ERRORS PATENT
In accordance with La.Code Crim.P. art. 920, all appeals are reviewed for
errors patent on the face of the record. After reviewing the record, we find no errors
patent.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NUMBER 1
Defendant contends the trial court erred by denying his motion to transfer this
case from Division A to Division B of the twelfth judicial district court since the
case had initially been allotted to Division B on September 27, 2016.
On October 15, 2018, just two weeks prior to the scheduled October 29, 2018
trial date, Defendant filed a motion to transfer his case to Division B. At the hearing
on Defendant’s motion, defense counsel recognized that the proceedings had taken
5 place in Division A since the indictment in October 2016, but argued that the case
was, nevertheless, a Division B case in accordance with the court’s rules, which
state:
Criminal cases shall be allotted to each division according to the date the offense is charged to have been committed. Alternating calendar weeks shall be pre-assigned to each division and the allotment to a particular division shall be based upon said weekly assignments and the date of the alleged offense. After a criminal case has been allotted, all matters relating to said case shall be taken up by the Judge of the division to which the case has been allotted, provided, however, that filings and uncontested matters may be taken up before either division.
La.Dist.Ct.R. 14.0, App. 14.0A (12th JDC),
In addition, the twelfth judicial district court, in Appendix A to the District
Court Rules, adopted La.Dist.Ct.R. 14.1, which states:
(a) Unless a different method is set forth in Appendix 14.1, if a defendant has a felony case pending and previously allotted, any new felony arrest for that defendant shall be allotted to the division to which the pending felony was allotted. This “felonies-following-felonies” rule also applies to any pending felony arrests for a co-defendant with a new arrest and billed as a co-defendant.
(b) For purposes of this Rule, a felony case remains pending until any of the following events has occurred:
(1) a bill of information or indictment is filed or amended, reducing the case to a misdemeanor;
(2) the District Attorney's Office enters a nolle prosequi in a case; or
(3) there is an adjudication of guilty by plea or trial.
Here, Defendant’s case was initially allotted to Division B based upon the date
of the offense; however, because Defendant had previously pled guilty to a different
felony in Division A, and was on probation for that felony at the time of the offenses
at issue here, the instant case was assigned to Division A.
6 The trial judge denied Defendant’s motion explaining the following practice
among the judges of twelfth judicial district court:
previously existing probation or the pending probation is a determining factor of what division handles the case. Not the date of the offense well it is true that the date of the offense on the calendar it would appear that this would be a division B case, in truth and in fact it is an exception to the ordinary rule and it’s correctly allotted to Division A and it’s going to be maintained as a Division A case as there is a pending active felony probation at the time of the commission of the felony charges that are pending for trial in this case.
On October 25, 2018, Defendant filed a writ application with this court
seeking review of the trial court’s denial of his motion to transfer. On October 26,
2018, this court issued a ruling denying Defendant’s writ application and stating as
follows:
WRIT DENIED: The defendant has not alleged or shown he is prejudiced nor is there any allegation or showing that the District Attorney attempted to manipulate the allotment. See State v. Nunez, 15-1473 (La. 1/27/16), 187 So.3d 964. The case has been handled pre- trial in Sec. A without objection since indictment on October 27, 2016, and the orderly administration of justice will be best served by maintaining the current trial date, which has been scheduled for Monday, October 29, 2018. Under the particular circumstances of this case, we find no error in the trial court’s ruling.
State v. Mayeaux, 18-856 (La.App. 3 Cir. 10/26/18) (unpublished opinion).
Judge Ezell dissented, stating as follows:
Ezell, J. dissents and would grant the writ for the following reasons. Defendant’s case was allotted to Division B of the Twelfth Judicial District Court according to La.Dist.Ct.R. 14.0, App. 14.0A, 12th JDC. The Twelfth Judicial District Court has adopted an exception to that rule that allows allotment for a felony case to the same division as a defendant’s pending felony. Defendant’s prior felony case is no longer pending, according to the rules adopted by the Twelfth Judicial District, because it was adjudicated by his guilty plea. Pursuant to the rules adopted by the Twelfth Judicial District Court, this case may not properly be heard in Division A.
Id.
7 On appeal, Defendant again seeks review of the trial court’s denial of his
motion to transfer the matter to Division B, arguing that the prior denial of a
supervisory writ application does not preclude reconsideration of the same issue on
appeal. State v. Castleberry, 98-1388 (La. 4/13/99), 758 So.2d 749, cert. denied, 528
U.S. 893, 120 S.Ct. 220 (1999). While that may be true, we find no basis upon which
to change this court’s conclusion in connection with our denial of Defendant’s
previous writ application. There is no indication that there was any objection to the
matter proceeding in Division A for nearly two years, and there is no indication that
Defendant was otherwise prejudiced by proceeding in Division A or that the District
Attorney attempted to manipulate the allotment. See State v. Nunez, 15-1473, 15-
1486 (La. 1/27/16), 187 So.3d 964. Accordingly, this assignment of error lacks
merit.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NUMBER 2
Defendant also argues on appeal that the trial court erred when it denied his
motion to continue presented on the last day of trial to obtain additional medical
records pertaining to Defendant’s mental state at the time of the offenses. The
motion was made following the testimony of Defendant’s mother, Jeanette
Mayeaux, indicating that Defendant had intermittently received psychiatric medical
treatment from Longleaf/Crossroads Mental Hospital, including inpatient
hospitalizations, from the time he was a child until shortly before the murders.
According to Defendant, medical records from Longleaf/Crossroads Mental
Hospital “could have aided the experts and trier of fact in determining [Defendant’s]
state of mind at the time of the crime.” Defendant further argues on appeal that
“there was no failure on the part of trial counsel in locating the evidence as he had
just recently located . . . Jeanette Mayeaux[.]”
8 According to Ms. Mayeaux, she first spoke to Defendant’s counsel the day
before her trial testimony. She testified that defense counsel had sent her “a message
on Facebook and told [her] a couple of things,” but she described herself as “not
very Facebook savvy.” She also indicated that defense counsel told her he had “been
looking for [her] for a long time.” Ms. Mayeaux further indicated that, although she
had wanted to talk to Defense counsel earlier, she was under the impression the
Assistant District Attorney would contact her if she was needed, and her sister had
told her not to contact Defendant’s counsel.
Ms. Mayeaux also testified that she first spoke to the State’s counsel “the day
of the grand jury[,]” which was in October 2016. She stated that she had lived at the
same address and had the same phone number since 2006. She further testified that
she “spoke to the victim’s assistance coordinator several times” about the matter.
At trial, Ms. Mayeaux also indicated that Defendant was treated at
Longleaf/Crossroads by Dr. Falarin “approximately at the end of May of 2016 until
mid-June of 2016[,]” and that Dr. Falarin had recommended that Defendant be
interdicted because he was non-compliant with his medications. Attorney Cory Roy,
who also testified at trial, indicated that he had been contacted by a pro bono legal
agency to help Defendant’s grandmother, Patti Mayeaux, obtain Defendant’s
interdiction so she could place him into a facility. However, before the interdiction
could be accomplished, Defendant murdered Patti and his grandfather in September
2016.
Ms. Mayeaux also testified that Defendant had received medical treatment
from Longleaf/Crossroads when he was nine or ten years old because “[h]e was
having some issues at school with the Tourette[’s] Syndrome and he was getting into
9 trouble a lot.” She said he had inpatient treatment there “for behavioral and
psychiatric” issues.
Dr. Simoneaux and Dr. Mayeux also testified at trial. Dr. Simoneaux testified
he did not believe Defendant “has ever suffered from a significant enough mental
illness or disturbance to prevent him from knowing right from wrong.” He did not
recall seeing any medical records indicating Defendant had been diagnosed with a
mental illness, but he thought he “had been told records exist.” Although Dr.
Simoneaux’s report dated February 19, 2017, stated his belief that Defendant “may
have suffered from a significant mental disease or defect,” he believed such a disease
or defect did not prevent Defendant from knowing right from wrong at the time of
the murders. Dr. Simoneaux also found Defendant “understood his actions were
wrong.” Further, Dr. Simoneaux believed Defendant understood the charges against
him and was capable of assisting in his defense. He had “no reason to believe that
[Defendant’s] mental condition would deteriorate under the stress of a trial.” The
report noted “no treatment records were provided” for Dr. Simoneaux to review.
In contrast, Dr. Mayeux’s report dated February 2, 2017, indicated his belief
“that [Defendant] is unable to assist in his defense due to his mental status[.]” Dr.
Mayeux recommended Defendant “be placed in [a] psychiatric unit until he is
deemed mentally stable to stand trial for the death of his grandparents.” Although
Dr. Mayeux did not specifically state whether Defendant knew right from wrong at
the time he committed the murders, he referred to Defendant’s comments that “his
grandfather shot himself after having stabbed his grandmother to death.” Defendant
told Dr. Mayeux he heard that on television, and he did not know why he was in a
closet when law enforcement found him there. He did not know what the charges
were against him. He “denied killing his grandparents, wanting to kill others and
10 denied having been in treatment for psychological problems.” Dr. Mayeux believed
Defendant “has all the characteristics of chronic psychosis” and classified him as a
sociopath and a psychopath. While the February 2, 2017 report was discussed at
trial, the report was not introduced into evidence. However, Dr. Mayeux testified
he believed Defendant was capable of distinguishing between right and wrong at the
time of the offenses and was able to assist in his defense at the time of trial.
Defendant contends he should have been granted a continuance after Ms.
Mayeaux’s testimony to allow him time obtain his records from
Longleaf/Crossroads. He argues those records constitute newly-discovered
evidence he had no way of obtaining because he did not know they existed until his
mother testified about them. He further alleges prejudice because the medical
experts who testified were unable to consider that evidence since his motion to
continue was denied.
“A continuance is the postponement of a scheduled trial or hearing, and shall
not be granted after the trial or hearing has commenced. A recess is a temporary
adjournment of a trial or hearing that occurs after a trial or hearing has commenced.”
La.Code Crim.P. art. 708. Nevertheless, when a motion is “improperly styled as one
of continuance or recess, the court may examine the motion as though it had been
properly denominated. . . . Thus, although the motion may have been improperly
styled as one for ‘continuance,’ it can be reviewed as if it had been properly named
as one for recess.” State v. Ford, 42,928, 42,929, 42,930, pp. 12-13 (La.App. 2 Cir.
2/13/08), 976 So.2d 321, 328, writ denied, 08-605 (La. 10/3/08), 992 So.2d 1010
(citations omitted).
Both the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 16 of the Louisiana Constitution (1974) guarantee a criminal defendant the
11 right to compulsory process and to present a defense. A defendant’s right to compulsory process is the right to demand subpoenas for witnesses and the right to have those subpoenas served. State v. Gordon, 01-734 (La.App. 5 Cir. 11/27/01), 803 So.2d 131, 148, writs denied, 2002- 0362 (La.12/19/02), 833 So.2d 336 and 2002-0209 (La.2/14/03), 836 So.2d 134.
State v. Jackson, 07-84, p. 9 (La.App. 5 Cir. 6/26/07), 963 So.2d 432, 438, writ denied, 07-1666 (La.1/25/08), 973 So.2d 754.
The trial court has great discretion in deciding whether to grant a continuance, and its ruling will not be overturned absent an abuse of discretion. State v. Bourque, 622 So.2d 198 (La.1993); State v. Champion, 412 So.2d 1048 (La.1982); La.C.Cr.P. art. 712. Further, we generally will not reverse a conviction due to an improper ruling on a continuance unless there is a showing of specific prejudice to the defendant as a result of the denial of the continuance. State v. Strickland, 94-0025 (La.11/1/96), 683 So.2d 218; State v. Knighton, 436 So.2d 1141 (La.1983).
State v. Castleberry, 98-1388, p. 11 (La.4/13/99), 758 So.2d 749, 759- 60, cert. denied, 528 U.S. 893, 120 S.Ct. 220, 145 L.Ed.2d 185 (1999).
State v. D.T., 08-814, p. 34 (La.App. 3 Cir. 12/11/08), 998 So.2d 1258, 1281, writ
denied, 09-624 (La. 11/25/09), 22 So.3d 171.
“In order to show prejudicial error sufficient to warrant reversal, the defendant must show that the testimony the witness would have given would have been favorable to the defense and would indicate the possibility of a different result.” State v. Landry, 03-1632, p. 11 (La.App. 4 Cir. 5/19/04), 876 So.2d 146, 153, writ denied, 04-1586 (La.11/15/04), 887 So.2d 474 (citing State v. Stevenson, 02-79 (La.App. 5 Cir. 4/30/02), 817 So.2d 343).
State v. Tolliver, 08-1486, p. 40 (La.App. 3 Cir. 5/13/09), 11 So.3d 584, 607-08, writ
denied, 09-1441 (La. 2/26/10), 28 So.3d 269. “A motion for recess is evaluated by
the same standards as a motion for a continuance.” State v. Williams, 07-1407, p.
30 (La. 10/20/09), 22 So.3d 867, 889, cert. denied, 560 U.S. 905, 130 S.Ct. 3278
(2010).
12 The State argues a “continuance” was improper because trial had already
begun and what Defendant sought was more than a temporary recess. However,
whether the request was styled as a motion for a continuance or a motion for recess,
is of no moment for purposes of our analysis.
In Tolliver, 11 So.3d 584, the defendant requested a continuance a week into
the trial because the initial investigator in the case and an FBI profiler were
unavailable to testify. Both witnesses “had already testified extensively . . . and had
been thoroughly cross-examined by the defense.” Id. at 600.
On appeal, this court found the record failed to show defense counsel’s due
diligence in securing the witnesses’ presence. Further, the record contained nothing
to show what the witnesses’ testimony would have been. Thus, the record failed to
show the defendant was prejudiced by the denial of the motions for continuance
based on the unavailability of the witnesses. This court commented, “because there
is no evidence in the record that would lead this court to conclude the defendant was
prejudiced by the denials of defense counsel’s motions for continuance and recesses
based on the unavailability of defense witnesses, there was no reversible error.”
Tolliver, 11 So.3d at 608.
Here, we likewise find that the record shows no prejudice to Defendant by the
denial of the motion for a continuance. Defendant was treated at
Longleaf/Crossroads just a few months prior to the murders, but he now claims he
knew nothing of that treatment until his mother testified. The State had located Ms.
Mayeaux in October of 2016, when the grand jury met. She had lived at the same
address with the same phone number for a long time. In contrast, defense counsel
found her on Facebook only immediately prior to the trial. Counsel placed no
13 evidence into the record to detail what efforts he had made to locate Ms. Mayeaux.
He stated merely that he had been looking for her a long time.
Once the evidence of Defendant’s treatment at Longleaf/Crossroads came to
light, Defendant could have called Drs. Simoneaux and Mayeux back to the witness
stand to ask them if that information would impact their opinions. Instead, the record
shows nothing to suggest Defendant made any effort to determine how important
those records could be if they in fact supported Ms. Mayeaux’s testimony.
Defendant’s argument requires this court to assume facts and evidence that are not
in the record and that Defendant has made no effort to place in the record. We further
find that Defendant has not shown any prejudice resulting from the trial court’s
denial of his motion to continue the trial based on Ms. Mayeaux’s testimony.
Therefore, we find no merit to this assignment of error.
DECREE
For the reasons set forth above, Defendant’s convictions and sentences are