State Of Louisiana v. Jeffrey M. Reynolds
State Of Louisiana v. Jeffrey M. Reynolds, No. 2019KW0696 (La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. Aug. 19, 2019).
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- State Ex Rel. Simmons v. State 647 So. 2d 1094
- State Ex Rel. Bernard v. CRIM. DIST. COURT SECTION" J" 653 So. 2d 1174
- State Ex Rel. McKnight v. State 742 So. 2d 894
Opinion text
STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT
STATE OF LOUISIANA NO. 2019 KW 0696
VERSUS
JEFFREY M. REYNOLDS
AUG 19 2919
In Re: Jeffrey M. Reynolds, applying for supervisory writs,
21st Judicial District Court, Parish of Livingston,
No. 12 - FELLA - 028551.
BEFORE: MCCLENDON, WELCH, AND HOLDRIDGE, JJ.
WRIT DENIED ON THE SHOWING MADE. Relator failed to include
a copy of the district court' s ruling on his application for
postconviction relief, a copy of his bill of information, all
pertinent minute entries and/ or transcripts, and
any other
portions of the district court record that might support the
claims raised in the application for postconviction relief.
Supplementation of this writ application and/ or an application
for rehearing will not be considered. See Uniform Rules of
Louisiana Courts of Appeal, Rules 2- 18. 7 & 4- 9. In the event
relator elects to file a new application with this court, the
application must be filed on or before October 15, 2019. Any
future filing on this issue should include the entire contents
of this application, the missing items noted above, and a copy
of this ruling.
Moreover, without showing a particularized need,
incarcerated indigents are entitled to a free
copy of certain
documents: Boykin transcript, bill of information, commitment
papers, court minutes for various portions of the trial, and
minutes of the sentencing. See State ex rel. Simmons v. State,
93- 0275 ( La. 12/ 16/ 94), 647 So. 2d 1094, 1095 ( per curiam). For
all other documents, the inmate is required to establish a
particularized need" by properly filing an application for
postconviction relief, which sets out specific claims of
constitutional errors requiring the requested documentation for
support. See State ex rel. Bernard v. Criminal District Court
Section " J", 94- 2247 ( La. 4/ 28/ 95), 653 So. 2d 1174, 1175 ( per
curiam); State ex rel. McKnight v. State, 98- 2258 ( La. App. 1st
Cir. 12/ 3/ 98), 742 So. 2d 894, 895 ( per curiam). Relator failed
to provide this court with any documentation showing the
district court denied his request for documentation to which he
is entitled.
PMO
JEW
GH
COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT
DEPUTY LE K OF COURT
FOR THE COURT