Preview:

STATE OF LOUISIANA EX                                                       *   NO. 2012-CA-0468
REL., LAWRENCE RAY
PITTMAN, SR.                                                                *
                                                                                COURT OF APPEAL
VERSUS                                                                      *
                                                                                FOURTH CIRCUIT
LYNETTE CONERLY (COURT                                                      *
REPORTER); DISTRICT                                                             STATE OF LOUISIANA
ATTORNEY PARISH OF                                                          *
ORLEANS, STATE OF
LOUISIANA
APPEAL FROM
CIVIL DISTRICT COURT, ORLEANS PARISH
NO. 2011-00955, DIVISION “G-11”
Honorable Robin M. Giarrusso, Judge
Judge Madeleine M. Landrieu
(Court composed of Judge Roland L. Belsome, Judge Daniel L. Dysart, Judge
Madeleine M. Landrieu)
Lawrence R. Pittman   #101703
David Wade Correctional Center
670 Bell Hill Road, H2-B
Homer, LA 71040
PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT/IN PROPER PERSON
AFFIRMED




In this appeal, Lawrence Pittman seeks review of the district court’s
judgment dismissing his petition for writ of mandamus.  For the following reasons,
we affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS BELOW
Mr. Pittman, a pro se litigant, filed a petition in Civil District Court on
January 31, 2011, requesting that a writ of mandamus be issued compelling
Lynette Conerly, a court reporter in Criminal District Court, to provide Mr.
Pittman with a copy of the reasonable doubt jury instruction from his 1989
criminal trial.  The petition was filed against the Orleans Parish District Attorney
Leon Cannizzarro, the State of Louisiana and Criminal District Court Judge
Benedict Willard.  Attached to Mr. Pittman’s petition was a 1997 order signed by
Criminal District Court Judge Sharon Hunter ordering Mrs. Conerly to provide Mr.
Pittman with a copy of the jury instructions given in Mr. Pittman’s criminal trial.
The trial court ordered that the matter be heard on briefs only because Mr.
Pittman is incarcerated.  None of the defendants filed a brief.  On July 15, 2011,
1




the trial court rendered judgment finding that it had no jurisdiction and dismissing
the case with prejudice.  This appeal followed.
DISCUSSION
On appeal, Mr. Pittman first argues that the trial court had jurisdiction to
issue a writ of mandamus ordering the public officials named in his petition
(Lynette Conerly, Judge Willard, and the District Attorney) to perform their
ministerial duties.
Unlike every other parish in Louisiana, in Orleans Parish the jurisdiction of
the district courts is split between civil and criminal matters.  La. R.S. 13:1137 and
13:1336.  The Orleans Parish civil district courts have the “same jurisdiction as the
district courts throughout the state, except as otherwise provided by law.”  La. R.S.
13:1137.  The Orleans Parish criminal district courts have “exclusive jurisdiction
of the trial and punishment of all crimes, misdemeanors, and offenses committed
within the Parish of Orleans if the jurisdiction is not vested by the law in some
other court.”  La. R.S. 13:1336.  As this Court has stated: “It is well settled that a
judge of the Civil District Court has no jurisdiction over a judge of the Criminal
District Court while he is acting in his official capacity.”  Angelico v. Cannizzaro,
543 So.2d 1064, 1067 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1989).
In accordance with these statutes, we find that the Civil District Court
lacked jurisdiction over Judge Willard, a Criminal District Court judge.  The trial
court correctly dismissed the petition for writ of mandamus against Judge Willard
on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction.
2




Although there is no statutory prohibition against the Civil District Court
possessing jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus to the court reporter, Lynette
Conerly, or the District Attorney, 1 we conclude that the dismissal of the petition
for writ of mandamus against those defendants was proper for other reasons.
With regard to the court reporter, we find that a writ of mandamus is not the
appropriate remedy by which the plaintiff may legally seek relief under these
circumstances.   “Mandamus is a writ directing a public officer . . . to perform any
of the duties set forth in Articles 3863 and 3864.”  La. C.C.P. art. 3861.  A writ of
mandamus is an extraordinary remedy.  Henderson v. Bigelow, 2007-1441, p.3,
(La. App. 4 Cir. 4/9/08), 982 So.2d 941, 943 n.3.    As such, the writ may be issued
only in cases where “the law provides no relief by ordinary means or where the
delay involved in obtaining ordinary relief may cause injustice.”  La. C.C.P. art.
3862.    In this case, Mr. Pittman attached an order dated January 30, 1997,
directing Mrs. Conerly to prepare a transcript of the jury instructions from Mr.
Pittman’s criminal trial.  La. C.C.P. art. 224 provides that a person may be held in
contempt of court for the willful disobedience of a court order.  La. C.C.P. art.   225
provides that a contempt proceeding may be instituted by the filing of a motion for
contempt.      Because the law provides relief by ordinary means under these
circumstances, a writ of mandamus directing Mrs. Conerly to perform would not
be an appropriate remedy in this case.
1 The court reporter and the district attorney are not in the same position as a judge.   See Angelico, supra, 543 So.2d
at 1067.
3




With regard to the District Attorney, the plaintiff has cited no law, nor do we
find any, that imposes a duty upon the District Attorney to provide a transcript of
jury instructions to the defendant in a criminal trial once the trial had ended.  As
there is no ministerial duty to be performed by the District Attorney in this
instance, the issuance of a writ of mandamus would not be proper.
Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court did not err by dismissing the
plaintiff’s petition for writ of mandamus.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
AFFIRMED
4

Download 313883.pdf

Louisiana Law