STATE OF LOUISIANA NO. 25-KH-152
VERSUS FIFTH CIRCUIT
JOHN WESLEY PATTON COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF LOUISIANA
ON APPLICATION FOR SUPERVISORY REVIEW FROM THE TWENTY-FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF LOUISIANA NO. 18-7474, DIVISION "J" HONORABLE STEPHEN C. GREFER, JUDGE PRESIDING
August 13, 2025
STEPHEN J. WINDHORST JUDGE
Panel composed of Judges Jude G. Gravois, Stephen J. Windhorst, and Scott U. Schlegel
WRIT DENIED SJW JGG SUS DEFENDANT/RELATOR, JOHN WESLEY PATTON In Proper Person
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT, STATE OF LOUISIANA Thomas J. Butler WINDHORST, J.
In this timely pro se writ application, relator, John Wesley Patton, seeks
review of the trial court’s February 4, 2025 order denying his motion requesting 37
transcripts and motion to proceed in forma pauperis on the requested transcripts.
Relator contends he needed to receive the 37 transcripts and proceed in forma
pauperis to supplement his pending application for post-conviction relief (“APCR”).
DENIED AS MOOT
As an initial matter, we find relator’s request in this writ application is moot.
This writ application requests that we reverse the trial court’s refusal to order 37
transcripts free of charge. It was timely postmarked (March 31, 2025), but not
received by this court and filed until April 9, 2025. By then, the trial court had
already denied relator’s October 4, 2024 APCR, making his purported need for the
37 transcripts a moot issue. Without a properly filed and pending application for
post-conviction relief setting forth specific claims of errors which require the
requested documentation for support, an indigent inmate cannot make a showing of
particularized need absent a properly filed application for post-conviction relief. See
Bernard, infra. Thus, to the extent that relator requests free copies of transcripts
needed to support the claims raised in his October 4, 2024 APCR, which is no longer
pending, we deny relator’s writ application as moot.
MERITS
Nevertheless, we will review this writ application and the APCR on its merits.
We find that on the face of the ACPR, relator is not entitled to the relief requested.
La. C.Cr.P. art. 926 B states the requirements of a properly filed APCR, including:
B. The petition shall allege: * * * (3) A statement of the grounds upon which relief is sought, specifying with reasonable particularity the factual basis for such relief; [Emphasis added] * * *
25-KH-152 1 Accordingly, an APCR which does not specifically allege a factual basis with
reasonable particularity has not satisfied this indispensable requirement of La.
C.Cr.P. art. 926 B(3).
An incarcerated indigent must demonstrate a particularized need before
receiving a copy of court transcripts free of charge.1 State ex rel. Simmons v. State,
93-275 (La. 12/16/94), 647 So.2d 1094, 1095 (per curiam). In State ex rel. Bernard
v. Criminal Dist. Court Section J., 94-2247 (La. 04/28/95), 653 So.2d 1174, the
Louisiana Supreme Court held that an indigent inmate cannot make a showing of
particularized need absent a properly filed application for post-conviction relief
which sets forth the specific claims of constitutional errors which required the
requested documentation for support.
The mere filing of an APCR, however, does not per se satisfy the required
“particularized need” for any of the 37 transcripts requested.2 Instead of specifically
alleging factual bases with reasonable particularity, from which a court may find that
there are “particularized needs” for the transcripts, relator contends that the 37
transcripts are needed to prepare the following conclusory post-conviction claims:
(1) ineffective assistance of counsel; (2) fabricated evidence; (3) violation of his
right to a public trial; (4) trial court misconduct and bias; (5) suppression of favorable
evidence; (6) denial of his right to a complete defense; (7) denial of his right to
present evidence during multiple hearings and trial; (8) perjured testimony; (9)
Fourth Amendment violations; (10) insufficient evidence; and (11) jury misconduct.
Clearly these do not specify any factual bases with reasonable particularity in
support of his claims; these are the conclusions relator/applicant is seeking to
1 Pursuant to State ex rel. Simmons, indigent inmates are generally entitled to the following documents free
of charge without showing a particularized need: (1) transcripts of their guilty plea colloquies; (2) copies of the bill of information or grand jury indictment charging them with a crime; (3) copies of the district court minutes for sentencing; (4) copies of transcripts of evidentiary hearings held on their applications for post- conviction relief; and (5) copies of the documents committing them into custody. 2 Eight of the requested transcripts are the eight days of the jury trial, which have been thoroughly reviewed on appeal. Any of applicant’s APCR claims which were assigned as error in the appeal were reviewed therein, with benefit of the transcripts, and are not subject to another review as an APCR.
25-KH-152 2 convince the trial court to reach. Unsupported by reasonably particular allegations
of fact, they do not show any particularized need for the transcripts.
The requirement of specific allegations of factual bases stated with reasonable
particularity is not only a statutory requirement; it is clear in our constitutional
jurisprudence. Access [to transcripts free of charge] does not require the state to
underwrite the inmate’s efforts to overturn his conviction and sentence by providing
him generally with documents “to comb the record for errors.” Bernard, 653 So.2d
at 1175; State ex rel. Payton v. Thiel, 315 So.2d 40 (La. 1975). An inmate cannot
make a showing of a particularized need absent a properly filed application for post
conviction relief which sets out specific claims of constitutional errors requiring the
requested documentation for support. Id. Due process and equal protection surely
do not require the providing of transcripts to make petitioner aware in the first
instance of events or occurrences which constitute grounds for [post conviction
relief]. Bernard, supra, citing State v. Drozd, 116 Ariz. 330, 569 P.2d 272, 274 (Ct.
App. 1977). [Emphasis added.]
“Particularized needs” requires that the applicant allege the “events or
occurrences,” or some actions taken or omitted, which support or establish the
existence of the ground(s) in La. C.Cr.P. art. 930.3, and would be relevant to the
court in determining the appropriate disposition of the application under La. C.Cr.P.
arts. 928 or 929, or to show genuine questions of relevant facts sufficient to conduct
an evidentiary hearing pursuant to La. C.Cr.P. art. 930.
In this case, the APCR applicant alleges, for example, that he had ineffective
assistance of counsel, but the record shows that he had waived counsel and
proceeded pro se after an extensive and somewhat contentious pre-trial Faretta
hearing, nor does he explain in what manner standby counsel (presumably)
appointed by the court to assist him pre-trial and during trial, was ineffective. He
alleges fabricated evidence, but failed to state what or how. He alleges trial court
25-KH-152 3 misconduct and bias, but does not explain how or in what way. His remaining
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
STATE OF LOUISIANA NO. 25-KH-152
VERSUS FIFTH CIRCUIT
JOHN WESLEY PATTON COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF LOUISIANA
ON APPLICATION FOR SUPERVISORY REVIEW FROM THE TWENTY-FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF LOUISIANA NO. 18-7474, DIVISION "J" HONORABLE STEPHEN C. GREFER, JUDGE PRESIDING
August 13, 2025
STEPHEN J. WINDHORST JUDGE
Panel composed of Judges Jude G. Gravois, Stephen J. Windhorst, and Scott U. Schlegel
WRIT DENIED SJW JGG SUS DEFENDANT/RELATOR, JOHN WESLEY PATTON In Proper Person
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT, STATE OF LOUISIANA Thomas J. Butler WINDHORST, J.
In this timely pro se writ application, relator, John Wesley Patton, seeks
review of the trial court’s February 4, 2025 order denying his motion requesting 37
transcripts and motion to proceed in forma pauperis on the requested transcripts.
Relator contends he needed to receive the 37 transcripts and proceed in forma
pauperis to supplement his pending application for post-conviction relief (“APCR”).
DENIED AS MOOT
As an initial matter, we find relator’s request in this writ application is moot.
This writ application requests that we reverse the trial court’s refusal to order 37
transcripts free of charge. It was timely postmarked (March 31, 2025), but not
received by this court and filed until April 9, 2025. By then, the trial court had
already denied relator’s October 4, 2024 APCR, making his purported need for the
37 transcripts a moot issue. Without a properly filed and pending application for
post-conviction relief setting forth specific claims of errors which require the
requested documentation for support, an indigent inmate cannot make a showing of
particularized need absent a properly filed application for post-conviction relief. See
Bernard, infra. Thus, to the extent that relator requests free copies of transcripts
needed to support the claims raised in his October 4, 2024 APCR, which is no longer
pending, we deny relator’s writ application as moot.
MERITS
Nevertheless, we will review this writ application and the APCR on its merits.
We find that on the face of the ACPR, relator is not entitled to the relief requested.
La. C.Cr.P. art. 926 B states the requirements of a properly filed APCR, including:
B. The petition shall allege: * * * (3) A statement of the grounds upon which relief is sought, specifying with reasonable particularity the factual basis for such relief; [Emphasis added] * * *
25-KH-152 1 Accordingly, an APCR which does not specifically allege a factual basis with
reasonable particularity has not satisfied this indispensable requirement of La.
C.Cr.P. art. 926 B(3).
An incarcerated indigent must demonstrate a particularized need before
receiving a copy of court transcripts free of charge.1 State ex rel. Simmons v. State,
93-275 (La. 12/16/94), 647 So.2d 1094, 1095 (per curiam). In State ex rel. Bernard
v. Criminal Dist. Court Section J., 94-2247 (La. 04/28/95), 653 So.2d 1174, the
Louisiana Supreme Court held that an indigent inmate cannot make a showing of
particularized need absent a properly filed application for post-conviction relief
which sets forth the specific claims of constitutional errors which required the
requested documentation for support.
The mere filing of an APCR, however, does not per se satisfy the required
“particularized need” for any of the 37 transcripts requested.2 Instead of specifically
alleging factual bases with reasonable particularity, from which a court may find that
there are “particularized needs” for the transcripts, relator contends that the 37
transcripts are needed to prepare the following conclusory post-conviction claims:
(1) ineffective assistance of counsel; (2) fabricated evidence; (3) violation of his
right to a public trial; (4) trial court misconduct and bias; (5) suppression of favorable
evidence; (6) denial of his right to a complete defense; (7) denial of his right to
present evidence during multiple hearings and trial; (8) perjured testimony; (9)
Fourth Amendment violations; (10) insufficient evidence; and (11) jury misconduct.
Clearly these do not specify any factual bases with reasonable particularity in
support of his claims; these are the conclusions relator/applicant is seeking to
1 Pursuant to State ex rel. Simmons, indigent inmates are generally entitled to the following documents free
of charge without showing a particularized need: (1) transcripts of their guilty plea colloquies; (2) copies of the bill of information or grand jury indictment charging them with a crime; (3) copies of the district court minutes for sentencing; (4) copies of transcripts of evidentiary hearings held on their applications for post- conviction relief; and (5) copies of the documents committing them into custody. 2 Eight of the requested transcripts are the eight days of the jury trial, which have been thoroughly reviewed on appeal. Any of applicant’s APCR claims which were assigned as error in the appeal were reviewed therein, with benefit of the transcripts, and are not subject to another review as an APCR.
25-KH-152 2 convince the trial court to reach. Unsupported by reasonably particular allegations
of fact, they do not show any particularized need for the transcripts.
The requirement of specific allegations of factual bases stated with reasonable
particularity is not only a statutory requirement; it is clear in our constitutional
jurisprudence. Access [to transcripts free of charge] does not require the state to
underwrite the inmate’s efforts to overturn his conviction and sentence by providing
him generally with documents “to comb the record for errors.” Bernard, 653 So.2d
at 1175; State ex rel. Payton v. Thiel, 315 So.2d 40 (La. 1975). An inmate cannot
make a showing of a particularized need absent a properly filed application for post
conviction relief which sets out specific claims of constitutional errors requiring the
requested documentation for support. Id. Due process and equal protection surely
do not require the providing of transcripts to make petitioner aware in the first
instance of events or occurrences which constitute grounds for [post conviction
relief]. Bernard, supra, citing State v. Drozd, 116 Ariz. 330, 569 P.2d 272, 274 (Ct.
App. 1977). [Emphasis added.]
“Particularized needs” requires that the applicant allege the “events or
occurrences,” or some actions taken or omitted, which support or establish the
existence of the ground(s) in La. C.Cr.P. art. 930.3, and would be relevant to the
court in determining the appropriate disposition of the application under La. C.Cr.P.
arts. 928 or 929, or to show genuine questions of relevant facts sufficient to conduct
an evidentiary hearing pursuant to La. C.Cr.P. art. 930.
In this case, the APCR applicant alleges, for example, that he had ineffective
assistance of counsel, but the record shows that he had waived counsel and
proceeded pro se after an extensive and somewhat contentious pre-trial Faretta
hearing, nor does he explain in what manner standby counsel (presumably)
appointed by the court to assist him pre-trial and during trial, was ineffective. He
alleges fabricated evidence, but failed to state what or how. He alleges trial court
25-KH-152 3 misconduct and bias, but does not explain how or in what way. His remaining
claims, equally or more general conclusory allegations, likewise fail to explain with
any reasonable particularity. Particular needs cannot be realized in the nearly total
absence of specific allegations of factual bases—such as events, occurrences, acts,
or omissions—with reasonable particularity. As stated in Bernard, free transcripts
are not provided for the applicant to comb through, searching for unalleged errors,
events, or occurrences.
To his credit, Mr. Patton is quite frank in characterizing his October 4, 2024
APCR as a “shell application,” 3 which he apparently filed as such in order to satisfy
the necessity of having filed his APCR before requesting the free transcripts, thereby
correcting the fault pointed out in writ disposition 24-KH-258. But this “shell
application” containing eleven conclusory allegations does not establish facts or
raise questions of fact in support of any of the exclusive grounds enumerated in La.
C.Cr.P. art. 930.3. Merely providing a list of dates on which the requested free
transcripts occurred, without even so much as the purpose or subject matter of the
hearing and the gist of the testimony or discussion contained therein, does nothing
to establish particularized needs, support the claims made in the APCR, or enable
the court to determine the appropriate disposition under La. C.Cr.P. arts. 928, 929,
or 930.
CONCLUSION
We first find that relator’s request in this writ application is moot. Although
relator’s writ application was timely postmarked (March 31, 2025), it was received
by this court and filed on April 9, 2025. By then, the trial court had already denied
relator’s October 4, 2024 APCR. Thus, because relator’s requests for free copies of
3 Writ application, p. 22 (“Procedural History” section)
25-KH-152 4 37 transcripts are purportedly needed to support the claims raised in the October 4,
2024 APCR, which is no longer pending, we deny relator’s writ application as moot.
Moreover, relator does not describe his post-conviction claims with any
factual specificity. Even if relator’s writ application had been filed prior to the trial
court’s denial of his APCR, on the showing made, we find relator is not entitled to
the requested documents. Additionally, we point out that in a prior writ application
filed with this court, 24-KH-258, relator sought review of the district court’s ruling
denying his request for the same 37 transcripts. This court denied relator’s writ
application, finding that “relator’s allegations standing alone, in the absence of a
properly filed APCR, do not meet his burden of demonstrating a particularized need
for the requested documents.” See State v. Patton, 24-KH-258 (La. App. 5 Cir.
07/02/24). Here, even though relator had filed an APCR, we find relator did not
demonstrate a particularized need for the requested documents.
For all of the foregoing reasons, we deny this writ.
WRIT DENIED
25-KH-152 5 SUSAN M. CHEHARDY CURTIS B. PURSELL
CHIEF JUDGE CLERK OF COURT
SUSAN S. BUCHHOLZ FREDERICKA H. WICKER CHIEF DEPUTY CLERK JUDE G. GRAVOIS MARC E. JOHNSON STEPHEN J. WINDHORST LINDA M. TRAN JOHN J. MOLAISON, JR. FIRST DEPUTY CLERK SCOTT U. SCHLEGEL TIMOTHY S. MARCEL FIFTH CIRCUIT MELISSA C. LEDET JUDGES 101 DERBIGNY STREET (70053) DIRECTOR OF CENTRAL STAFF POST OFFICE BOX 489 GRETNA, LOUISIANA 70054 (504) 376-1400
(504) 376-1498 FAX www.fifthcircuit.org
NOTICE OF JUDGMENT AND CERTIFICATE OF DELIVERY I CERTIFY THAT A COPY OF THE OPINION IN THE BELOW-NUMBERED MATTER HAS BEEN DELIVERED IN ACCORDANCE WITH UNIFORM RULES - COURT OF APPEAL, RULE 2-16.4 AND 2-16.5 THIS DAY AUGUST 13, 2025 TO THE TRIAL JUDGE, CLERK OF COURT, COUNSEL OF RECORD AND ALL PARTIES NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL, AS LISTED BELOW:
25-KH-152 E-NOTIFIED 24TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT (CLERK) HONORABLE STEPHEN C. GREFER (DISTRICT JUDGE) THOMAS J. BUTLER (RESPONDENT)
MAILED JOHN WESLEY PATTON #79121800 (RELATOR) RAYBURN CORRECTIONAL CENTER 27268 HIGHWAY 21 ANGIE, LA 70426