State v. Cordero

993 So. 2d 203, 2008 WL 4445783
CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana
DecidedOctober 31, 2008
Docket2008-KH-1717
StatusPublished
Cited by1,033 cases

This text of 993 So. 2d 203 (State v. Cordero) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Louisiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State v. Cordero, 993 So. 2d 203, 2008 WL 4445783 (La. 2008).

Opinion

993 So.2d 203 (2008)

STATE of Louisiana
v.
Sandra CORDERO.

No. 2008-KH-1717.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

October 3, 2008.
Opinion Concurring in Denial of Rehearing October 31, 2008.

*204 PER CURIAM.

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 *205 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.

APPENDIX

MINUTES

MINUTES OF THE EN BANC MEETING OF THE JUDGES OF THE FIFTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEAL

PRESENT: CHIEF JUDGE EDWARD A. DUFRESNE, JR.

JUDGE MARION F. EDWARDS

JUDGE SUSAN M. CHEHARDY

JUDGE CLARENCE E. MCMANUS

JUDGE WALTER J. ROTHSCHILD

JUDGE FREDERICA HOMBERG WICKER

JUDGE GREG G. GUIDRY By Proxy

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.

*206 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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Schexnayder v. Vannoy
140 S. Ct. 354 (Supreme Court, 2019)
Chris Gilkers v. Darrel Vannoy, Warden
904 F.3d 336 (Fifth Circuit, 2018)
David Patterson v. Darrel Vannoy, Warden
689 F. App'x 360 (Fifth Circuit, 2017)
Louie Schexnayder, Jr. v. Darrel Vannoy, Warden
643 F. App'x 417 (Fifth Circuit, 2016)
Desalvo v. Cain
100 So. 3d 823 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 2012)
STATE EX REL. PEDEN v. State
42 So. 3d 384 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 2010)
STATE EX REL. GERARD v. State
42 So. 3d 383 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 2010)
STATE EX REL. TRIM v. State
42 So. 3d 384 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 2010)
STATE EX REL. MIMS v. State
42 So. 3d 384 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 2010)
State v. Oliver
30 So. 3d 946 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2009)
STATE EX REL. DENNIS v. State
23 So. 3d 940 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 2009)
Furnell Severin v. Jefferson Parish
357 F. App'x 601 (Fifth Circuit, 2009)
STATE EX REL. LAPELL v. State
23 So. 3d 907 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 2009)
STATE EX REL. DENET v. State
19 So. 3d 469 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 2009)
STATE EX REL. STACK v. State
17 So. 3d 390 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 2009)
STATE EX REL. JOHNSON v. State
17 So. 3d 397 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 2009)
Evans v. Cain
577 F.3d 620 (Fifth Circuit, 2009)
State ex rel. Robins v. State
10 So. 3d 729 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 2009)
STATE EX REL. MILLS v. State
7 So. 3d 1189 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 2009)
STATE EX REL. WEATHERSBY v. State
7 So. 3d 1219 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 2009)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
993 So. 2d 203, 2008 WL 4445783, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-cordero-la-2008.