State Of Louisiana v. Whitney Loston

STATE OF LOUISIANA NO. 2023 KW 0905

VERSUS

WHITNEY LOSTON DECEMBER 4, 2023

In Re: Whitney Loston, applying for supervisory writs, 16th
Judicial District Court, Parish of St. Mary, Nos.

2009- 181129/ 03- 162554.

BEFORE: McCLENDON, HESTER, AND MILLER, JJ.

WRIT DENIED ON THE SHOWING MADE. Relator failed to include
the resentencing minute entries and/ or the transcript, his bill

of information, the uniform commitment order, any pertinent

minute entries, and other portions of the district court record

that might support the claims raised in the writ application.

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. 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.

It is noted that as an indigent inmate, relator is entitled
to receive certain court documents, such as the guilty plea

transcript, the bill of information or indictment, the

commitment papers, the court minutes for various portions of the
trial, and the minutes of his sentencing, free of charge without

the necessity of establishing a particularized need. See State
ex rel. Simmons v. State, 93- 0275 ( La. 12/ 16/ 94), 647 So. 2d
1094, 1095 ( per curiam). As to all other documents, an indigent

inmate has the constitutional right to free copies only in those
instances in which he shows that denial of the request will

deprive him of an adequate opportunity to present his claims

fairly. Meeting that constitutional threshold requires a

showing of a particularized need. An inmate therefore cannot

make a showing of particularized need absent a properly filed
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).

PMC
CHH
SMM

OURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

PUTY CLERK OF COURT
i
FOR THE COURT