Mary Ann Vial Lemmon

This case involved a divorced couple's dispute over child support for their three minor children. After the father moved to reduce his monthly obligation from the original $1,700 consent judgment amount, the trial court found a material change in circumstances, imputed income to the mother based on a finding of voluntary underemployment, calculated support at $1,941 under the guidelines, and then deviated downward to $1,500 per month. On appeal, the court affirmed the modification of the support award but vacated the portion of the judgment addressing the children's school tuition payments because that issue was not properly before the trial court. The decision rested on application of Louisiana's child support guidelines and statutory provisions allowing deviation when equitable.

family law

The case involved St. Charles Parish suing property owners Wanda and Douglas Bordelon for violating local ordinances on nuisances, specifically abandoned or derelict vehicles, trash and debris on the property, and open storage of building materials, lumber, and machinery. The trial court denied the owners' motion to dismiss on grounds of res judicata from prior litigation and ruled in favor of the Parish, ordering removal of the violations. On appeal, the court affirmed the judgment after reviewing evidence from code enforcement inspections and photographs showing ongoing and worsening conditions. The core reasoning was that the current allegations concerned distinct and new violations separate from the prior case, which had involved a nonconforming business use rather than these specific nuisance issues, so res judicata did not apply.

propertybusiness & regulatory

This case involves Kevin Johnson's second appeal challenging his resentencing as a fourth-felony offender following his conviction for distribution of methamphetamine. After the trial court initially imposed a reduced sentence below the statutory mandatory minimum of twenty years, the appellate court vacated that sentence on the state's writ application and remanded for resentencing. The trial court then resentenced Johnson to the mandatory twenty years without parole, probation, or suspension of sentence. On review, the court affirmed the resentence as amended, remanded for clarification regarding the concurrent nature of the sentence and correction of the uniform commitment order, and granted counsel's motion to withdraw after finding no non-frivolous issues for appeal under Anders v. California.

criminal lawprocedure

This case is a family dispute between former spouses Paris Pierre and Reanda Pierre involving modifications to a protective order, child custody, and contempt proceedings under Louisiana law. The trial court modified an existing protective order to add the parties' four minor children as protected persons, suspended all visitation and contact between Mr. Pierre and the children pursuant to the Post-Separation Family Violence Relief Act, and held Mr. Pierre in contempt of a prior sole custody judgment. On appeal, the Fifth Circuit reversed the portion of the order adding the children as protected persons, finding error in that modification, but affirmed the contempt ruling and the suspension of visitation and contact. The court remanded with instructions to issue an amended protective order removing the children as protected persons while leaving the other conditions intact. The decision was based on the procedural and substantive requirements of the relevant statutes governing abuse prevention orders and family violence relief.

family lawcriminal law

The case involves defendant Rene Fuentes, who was convicted of fourth-offense driving while intoxicated under Louisiana law after pleading guilty while reserving appellate rights. Following an initial appeal that vacated his sentence due to application of the wrong statutory provision, the trial court resentenced him to 27 years imprisonment with the Department of Corrections, along with conditions including home incarceration and substance abuse requirements. Fuentes appealed, arguing the sentence was unconstitutionally excessive, that the court failed to order a presentence investigation or consider mitigating factors, and that it improperly increased his incarceration term. The Court of Appeal affirmed the sentence after reviewing the record and statutory requirements under La. R.S. 14:98.4(C), finding no abuse of discretion, while remanding solely for correction of patent errors in the uniform commitment order. The opinion also noted the two-year limit for post-conviction relief applications.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved plaintiff Gregory Jackson seeking to annul a 2004 donation of immovable property and improvements, including mobile homes, to defendant Darryl Sumlin on the grounds that it violated Louisiana Civil Code article 1498 by divesting Jackson of his entire patrimony without reserving sufficient means for his subsistence, with an alternative claim of ingratitude based on a later eviction. The trial court annulled the donation under article 1498, dismissed Sumlin's exception of prescription as moot, and later denied Sumlin's reconventional demand for the value of alleged improvements after finding their value to be zero due to insufficient credible evidence of any improvements made. On appeal, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal affirmed the annulment, the dismissal of the prescription exception, and the denial of the reconventional demand, holding that the trial court was not manifestly erroneous in its findings on the lack of evidence regarding improvements or their value.

property

In Reanda Pierre v. Paris Phillip Pierre, the case involved a custody dispute over the couple's four minor children after their 2020 divorce, where the mother petitioned for sole custody citing incidents of domestic violence by the father under the Post-Separation Family Violence Relief Act. The trial court granted the mother sole custody with supervised visitation for the father, following a prior protective order and evidence of abuse. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment, concluding that the record supported application of the PSFVRA and that the custody arrangement served the children's best interests.

family law

The case involved defendant Shane Smith, who was charged with misdemeanor battery of a dating partner after an incident in which the victim testified that he slammed her to the ground and punched her in the face during a dispute at her home. After a bench trial, the district court convicted Smith and imposed a six-month parish prison sentence with all but the first forty-eight hours suspended, plus probation. On supervisory review, the court of appeal affirmed the conviction, concluding that the victim's testimony, photographs of her injuries, and evidence of the parties' ongoing romantic relationship provided sufficient proof of the elements of the offense under La. R.S. 14:34.9. The court remanded solely for the trial court to clarify that at least forty-eight hours of the sentence must be served without parole eligibility, as required by the statute.

criminal law

In this slip and fall case, plaintiffs Pamela and Tony Migliore alleged that Tony broke his ankle after slipping on a recently mopped floor in a McDonald's restaurant that was not properly cordoned off or warned about. Defendants moved for summary judgment, supported by depositions, security videos, and medical records showing warning cones in the area, the plaintiff's awareness of them, and no visible water at the fall site. The trial court granted the motion, and the Court of Appeal affirmed, holding there were no genuine issues of material fact and defendants were entitled to judgment as a matter of law because plaintiffs could not prove the essential elements of their claim.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case involved Leah Alexander's petition for a domestic abuse protective order against her former fiancé, Thaddeus Victor, under Louisiana's Domestic Abuse Assistance Law, listing herself and their minor child as protected persons based on allegations of physical abuse, stalking, threats, and sexual assault over the prior year. The trial court granted the order after a hearing, extending protections until June 2024 and barring Victor from contact with the protected parties. On appeal, Victor challenged the sufficiency of the evidence and the inclusion of the child in the order. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in part, finding the evidence adequate to support the order, but remanded for clarification on certain aspects of the ruling. A dissent argued that the allegations did not meet the preponderance standard for domestic abuse.

family lawcriminal law

This case involves the State of Louisiana challenging the sentence imposed on Kevin Johnson after his conviction for distribution of methamphetamine and adjudication as a fourth-felony offender under the Habitual Offender Law. The trial court sentenced Johnson to 16 years imprisonment, below the mandatory minimum of 20 years, citing State v. Dorthey to find the minimum constitutionally excessive based on factors like his age, military history, addiction, and cooperation. The State sought supervisory review, arguing the sentence did not conform to La. R.S. 15:529.1. The Court of Appeal denied Johnson's motion to dismiss the writ, granted the State's application, vacated the enhanced sentence, and remanded for resentencing, holding that the trial court improperly deviated from the statutory requirements.

criminal law

The case involved Kevin Johnson, who was charged with distribution of methamphetamine after a confidential informant conducted a controlled buy from him as part of a St. Charles Parish Sheriff's Office investigation following a traffic stop. A jury unanimously convicted Johnson of the charge, after which the trial court adjudicated him a fourth-felony offender under La. R.S. 15:529.1 and imposed an enhanced sentence of sixteen years, deviating downward from the mandatory minimum pursuant to State v. Dorthey. Johnson appealed only his conviction, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence including the informant's testimony and the handling of the controlled purchase. The appellate court reviewed the trial evidence and procedures, affirmed the conviction as supported by the record, but vacated the enhanced sentence and remanded for resentencing due to improper deviation from the habitual offender statute requirements.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerns the succession, or probate, of Cornelia Smith in Louisiana state court. An application for rehearing was filed following an earlier ruling by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal. The court denied the rehearing application without stating any reasons for the denial. The matter involves parties including appellee Charles K. Chauvin and appellants represented by Brad P. Scott and others.

family lawpropertyprocedure

In this criminal case, defendant Johtre Scott was charged with second-degree murder and attempted second-degree murders arising from a shooting outside a grocery store in St. Charles Parish. The State sought to introduce evidence of unrelated firearms, ammunition, Snapchat videos showing the defendant and his uncle with guns, and prior incidents involving firearm possession to prove a motive of retaliation under Louisiana Code of Evidence Article 404(B). The trial court ruled the evidence admissible, but on supervisory writ review the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal granted relief and held that the trial judge abused her discretion. The appellate court reasoned that the evidence lacked independent relevance to a permitted purpose under Article 404(B) and instead constituted inadmissible character evidence, as none of the firearms matched those used in the charged offenses and the other incidents did not sufficiently establish the alleged motive without improper propensity implications.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved the succession of Cornelia Smith, who died intestate in 2021 leaving multiple heirs and immovable property in St. Charles Parish. Zelvin Smith, one of the heirs, was appointed provisional administrator and sought to evict other heirs from the property under La. C.C.P. art. 4731 while also attempting to sell succession assets. Another heir, Tiffany White, filed a motion to remove Smith as administrator and dismiss the proceeding, arguing that the original petition failed to show any need for administration under La. C.C.P. arts. 3001 and 3111 because there were no allegations of incompetent heirs or outstanding debts. The trial court granted the motion in full, but the Court of Appeal affirmed the removal of the administrator while reversing the dismissal of the succession and remanding for further proceedings.

family lawpropertyprocedure

This case involves a petition for intrafamily adoption of a minor child A.A. filed by the child's biological mother and stepfather in the 29th Judicial District Court in St. Charles Parish. At the time, custody proceedings between the biological mother and father were already ongoing in the 24th Judicial District Court in Jefferson Parish. The Court of Appeal, on its own motion, determined that the St. Charles Parish court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to grant the adoption while the custody matter was pending elsewhere. As a result, the appellate court vacated the trial court's judgment granting the adoption as void.

family lawprocedure

The case concerned a dispute over leadership and management at St. Matthew Baptist Church of New Sarpy, in which plaintiff Dianne LeBoyd alleged that the defendant deacons were holding office and directing church affairs in violation of the bylaws, that she had been improperly removed as financial secretary, and that prior court orders on pastor selection and board elections had not been followed. Following earlier consent and summary judgments addressing those issues, LeBoyd filed a motion for contempt; the trial court denied it as untimely under a pretrial order requiring dispositive motions to be filed at least 60 days before trial. The Fifth Circuit granted supervisory review, vacated the February 2, 2023 judgment, and remanded for a hearing on the motion. The court reasoned that the contempt allegations addressed noncompliance with existing judgments rather than the sole remaining trial issue of restitution, so the pretrial deadline did not apply and refusal to hear the motion would result in manifest injustice.

procedureelections

In this succession case involving the estate of Carle Laine Carpenter, the appellants sought to probate a copy of the decedent's 2003 will after an earlier petition was dismissed via consent judgment when the original could not be produced. The trial court granted the appellee's exceptions of res judicata and no right of action, dismissing the petitions, while overruling an exception of prescription. On appeal, the court affirmed the res judicata ruling because the prior consent judgment, in which the parties agreed that no will existed if the original could not be produced, barred relitigation of the same claims. However, it reversed the denial of prescription, granted the exception, and dismissed the petition for absolute nullity as time-barred.

family lawpropertyprocedure

Richard Benoit filed an application for post-conviction relief after his convictions for sexual battery and attempted aggravated incest, followed by a supplemental application raising claims including factual innocence, coerced statements, and ineffective assistance of counsel. The district court denied the supplemental application, prompting Benoit to seek supervisory review. The Court of Appeal granted the writ in part to remand the case for the district court to rule on the merits of the supplemental claims that had not been addressed, and denied the writ in part regarding the factual innocence claim on the showing made. The decision was based on the need to ensure all properly raised claims receive consideration before final disposition, while finding no basis to disturb the ruling on factual innocence.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Rene Fuentes, who was charged with driving while intoxicated as a fourth offense after being stopped by deputies in St. Charles Parish following a report of a suspicious vehicle at a Popeye's restaurant. Fuentes appealed the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence, arguing that the stop lacked reasonable suspicion because no traffic violation occurred. The Court of Appeal affirmed the denial of the motion to suppress and the conviction, finding that the deputies' observations of the vehicle swerving toward the center line provided reasonable suspicion for the stop. However, the court vacated the sentence due to errors patent in the sentencing process and remanded the case for resentencing.

criminal lawprocedure