Cheri Hayden v. Frederick Boutte, Warden

Supreme Court of Louisiana
April 13, 2021
Chief Deputy Clerk of Court
For the Court
The Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana
CHERI HAYDEN
VS.
FREDERICK BOUTTE, WARDEN
No.2019-KP-00968
_ _
_ _ _ _
I
N RE: Cheri Hayden - Applicant Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory Writ, Parish
of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Number(s) 08-1709, Court of Appeal, Fifth
Circuit, Number(s) 19-KH-54;
_ _ _ _ _ _
April 13, 2021
Writ application granted. See per curiam.
Genovese, J., would deny.
JLW
JDH
SJC
WJC
JBM
PDG
04/13/2021 "See News Release 015 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents."

04/13/21
S
UPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
No. 19-KP-00968
CH
ERI HAYDEN
VS.
FREDERICK BOUTTE, WARDEN
ON
SUPERVISORY WRIT TO THE TWENTY-FOURTH
JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF JEFFERSON
PE
R CURIAM:
Writ granted. The case is remanded to the d istrict court for consideration of
the merits of the post-conviction application. Cheri Hayden has made a sufficient
showing under the particular circumstances of her case that her constitutional
claims rest on facts not known to her or her prior attorney, and she exercised
diligence in attempting to discover those claims. See La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8(A)(1);
State ex rel. Cormier v. State , 98 -2111 (La. 12/18/98), 731 So. 2d 274 (“[T]he
discovery of new evidence excepting a claim from the prescriptive period of
La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8 would necessarily except a claim from the repetitiveness bars
of La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4.”). The custodian, through the district attorney, shall file an
answer on the merits of the claims pursuant to La.C.Cr.P. art. 927(A). Thereafter,
the district court is directed to conduct an evidentiary hearing and consider the
merits of the post- conviction application in light of all of the evidence . La.C.Cr.P.
art. 930. Furthermore, we direct the trial court to reconsider the motions for
subpoenas duces tecum under the criteria for pre-hearing access to materials in the
possession of others provided in State v. Marcelin, 10-2036, p. 2 (La. 10/15/10), 46
So.3d 191, 193. Marcelin requires the moving party seeking a pre -hearing

2

subpoena duces tecum to show: (1) relevancy; (2) admissibility; and (3) specificity.
Id. The motion to remand is denied as moot. Ms. Hayden may supplement her
post-conviction application with the Tabitha Chiasson affidavit.