Hazel Guillot Oubre Versus Graylin Burl, Jr., Eliana Defrancesch, in Her Capacity as Clerk of Court for St. John the Baptist Parish

HAZEL GUILLOT OUBRE NO. 23-CA-421

VERSUS FIFTH CIRCUIT

GRAYLIN BURL, JR., ELIANA COURT OF APPEAL
DEFRANCESCH, IN HER CAPACITY AS
CLERK OF COURT FOR ST. JOHN THE STATE OF LOUISIANA
BAPTIST PARISH

ON APPEAL FROM THE FORTIETH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF ST. JOHN THE BAPTIST, STATE OF LOUISIANA
NO. 80,320, DIVISION "B"
HONORABLE NGHANA LEWIS, JUDGE PRESIDING

August 29, 2023
9:48 am

ROBERT A. CHAISSON
JUDGE

Panel composed of Judges Fredericka Homberg Wicker,
Marc E. Johnson, Robert A. Chaisson, Stephen J. Windhorst, and Scott U. Schlegel

AFFIRMED
RAC
FHW
MEJ
SJW
SUS

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE,
HAZEL GUILLOT OUBRE
Kevin P. Klibert

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT,
GRAYLIN BURL, JR.
In Proper Person

CHAISSON, J.

In this suit arising from an objection to the candidacy of Graylin Burl, Jr. for

election to the office of Sheriff of St. John the Baptist Parish, Mr. Burl appeals an

August 21, 2023 judgment of the trial court sustaining the objection of Hazel

Guillot Oubre and disqualifying Mr. Burl as a candidate. For the following

reasons, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

BACKGROUND

On August 8, 2023, Mr. Burl qualified with the St. John the Baptist Parish

Clerk of Court to run for the position of Sheriff of St. John the Baptist Parish. In

accordance with the manner of qualifying provisions contained in La. R.S.

18:461(A), Mr. Burl paid his qualifying fee and filed with the Clerk a signed and

notarized Notice of Candidacy form, which included the following certification

required by La. R.S. 18:463(A)(2)(a)(iv):

If I am a candidate for any office other than United States senator or
representative in congress, that for each of the previous five tax years,
I have filed my federal and state income tax returns, have filed for an
extension of time for filing either my federal or state income tax
return or both, or was not required to file either a federal or state
income tax return or both.

On August 17, 2023, Ms. Oubre, a registered voter domiciled in St. John the

Baptist Parish, filed a Verified Petition Objecting to the Candidacy of Mr. Burl. In

her petition, Ms. Oubre alleged that according to the Louisiana Department of

Revenue (“LDR”), Mr. Burl has not filed a state income tax return since 2019 and

that his certification contained in his Notice of Candidacy is therefore false.

A hearing on the petition was held on August 21, 2023. Ms. Oubre testified

that she filed her objection to Mr. Burl’s candidacy when a public records request

to the LDR showed that Mr. Burl had not filed his state income tax returns. Ms.

Oubre called as a witness Stacey Greaud, an employee and representative of LDR,

who testified that, pursuant to the public records request, a search of LDR records

23-CA-421 1

found tax returns filed by Mr. Burl for 2018 and 2019, but no tax returns on file for

2020, 2021, or 2022. Ms. Oubre also called Sergeant Steven Faucheux, the human

resources commander for the St. John the Baptist Sheriff’s Office, who testified

that he had received a public records request related to Mr. Burl and that, upon

investigation, the records indicated that Mr. Burl received income from the

Sheriff’s Office in 2018, 2019, and from January to October of 2020. Redacted

copies of Mr. Burl’s W-2’s for 2018, 2019, and 2020 were introduced into

evidence.

Mr. Burl testified on his own behalf. He stated that in 2020 he filed a

bankruptcy proceeding that was completed in September of 2021. He testified that

he prepared his 2020 state tax return himself, gave a copy to his bankruptcy

attorney, and mailed the return to LDR, thus assuming that his 2020 tax return was

filed. Mr. Burl also testified that he has not held a job since leaving the Sheriff’s

Office in October of 2020, and therefore had no taxable income for the years since

that time. He stated that he had no other proof of sending the 2020 tax return to

LDR, only that he had placed the return in a stamped envelope and mailed it via

the United States Postal Service. As evidence, Mr. Burl introduced a copy of the

PACER docket report from his federal bankruptcy proceeding which showed

docket entries for tax documents, but did not contain actual copies of said

documents. Mr. Burl also introduced into evidence a document, IT-540-web-2020

Louisiana Resident, which purported to reflect a state tax filing, however, the

numbers stated there did not correspond to the documentation of Mr. Burl’s

income from the Sheriff’s Office for that period, and there was no indication on the

document when it was transmitted or received.

Following the hearing on the petition, the trial court entered a judgment with

reasons sustaining the objection raised by Ms. Oubre and disqualifying Mr. Burl as

a candidate. The trial court specifically held that the petitioner made a prima facie

23-CA-421 2

showing that Mr. Burl failed to file state income taxes for the years 2020, 2021,

and 2022, and that, with the evidentiary burden shifted, Mr. Burl failed to provide

sufficient evidence that he filed state tax returns for the 2020 tax year. Further,

because the PACER system allows for public access to bankruptcy records for a

nominal fee, the trial court specifically questioned Mr. Burl’s credibility

concerning his testimony that he was unable to access those documents.

DISCUSSION

Appellate courts review a trial court’s findings of fact under the manifest

error or clearly wrong standard of review. Smith v. Charbonnet, 17-634 (La. App.

4 Cir. 8/2/17), 224 So.3d 1055, 1059, writ denied, 17-1364 (La. 8/7/17), 222 So.3d

722. Where there is a conflict in the testimony, reasonable evaluations of

credibility and reasonable inferences of fact should not be disturbed upon review.

Salgado v. Tri-Par. Roofing & Home Improvements, 19-407 (La. App. 5 Cir.

5/27/20), 296 So.3d 1201. Appellate review of questions of law is simply a review

of whether the trial court was legally correct or incorrect. Anderson v. Dean, 22-

233 (La. App. 5 Cir. 7/25/22), 346 So.3d 356, 364.

In an election contest, because election laws must be interpreted to give the

electorate the widest possible choice of candidates, a person objecting to the

candidacy bears the burden of proving the candidate should be disqualified.

Crosby v. Cantrelle, 20-252 (La. App. 5 Cir. 8/10/20), 301 So.3d 1234, 1238, writ

denied, 20-996 (La. 8/14/20), 300 So.3d 876. Although Louisiana law favors

candidacy, once a plaintiff makes a prima facie showing of grounds for

disqualification, the burden shifts to the defendant to rebut the showing. Id.

(citing Russo v. Burns, 14-1963 (La. 9/24/14), 147 So.3d 1111, 1114).

La. R.S. 18:492(A) states, in pertinent part:

An action objecting to the candidacy of a person who qualified as a
candidate in a primary election shall be based on one or more of the
following grounds:

23-CA-421 3

(7) The defendant falsely certified on his notice of candidacy that for
each of the previous five tax years he has filed his federal and state
income tax returns, has filed for an extension of time for filing either
his federal or state income tax return or both as provided in R.S.
18:463(A)(2), or was not required to file either a federal or state
income tax return or both.

We agree with the trial court that the evidence presented by Ms. Oubre,

including the testimonies of the LDR representative and the human resources

officer from Mr. Burl’s former employer, as well as the documentary evidence of

his W-2s, is sufficient to establish a prima facie showing of the grounds for Mr.

Burl’s disqualification.1

Because Ms. Oubre made a prima facie showing, the burden then shifted to

Mr. Burl to show either actual delivery of his state income tax return for the 2020

tax year to the LDR or some other evidence to corroborate the truth of his

candidate certification that he had filed his tax returns. See Crosby, 301 So.3d at

1242; see also, Braggs v. Dickerson, 22-1227 (La. 8/13/22), 344 So.3d 63, (“Tax

returns that have not been delivered to the Louisiana Department of Revenue have

not been filed”). Mr. Burl provided no objective evidence showing that his state

tax return for the 2020 tax year was actually delivered to the LDR. Mr. Burl’s

testimony that he placed his tax return for the 2020 tax year in a stamped envelope

in the mailbox on some unspecified date is insufficient to meet his burden.2 The

trial court correctly observed that the documentary evidence provided by Mr. Burl,

consisting of a printed PACER docket sheet and a web form of a purported 2020

state tax filing, were insufficient to corroborate Mr. Burl’s claim that he filed his

1
In this appeal, Mr. Burl objects for the first time to the introduction of his W-2s. Having failed to raise
this objection before the trial court, this objection has been waived. Regardless, Mr. Burl did not question
Sergeant Faucheux’s testimony regarding the income that Mr. Burl earned from the Sheriff’s office in
2020, necessitating the filing of a state tax return. Rather, Mr. Burl takes the position that he filed a state
tax return for the 2020 tax year, rendering the introduction of his W-2s harmless.
2
In this appeal, Mr. Burl argues for the first time that he was not able to mail his state tax return for the
2020 tax year by certified mail due to COVID restrictions imposed by the U.S. Postal Service; however,
he did not raise this claim in the trial court. We therefore decline to consider the veracity of Mr. Burl’s
claim that such restrictions imposed by the Postal Service would have limited his ability, in April of 2021,
over a full year after the start of the COVID pandemic and when his 2020 tax return would have been
due, to mail his return by certified mail.

23-CA-421 4

state tax return for the 2020 tax year. The trial court made a reasonable credibility

evaluation and we decline to disturb that determination.

CONCLUSION

In the light of Ms. Oubre’s prima facie showing that Mr. Burl failed to file

his state tax return for the 2020 tax year, and Mr. Burl’s failure to rebut that

showing, we find no manifest error in the trial court’s conclusion that when Mr.

Burl signed his Notice of Candidacy, he falsely certified that he had filed his tax

returns for each of the last five years for which he was required to do so.

Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court disqualifying Mr. Burl as a candidate

for the office of Sheriff of St. John the Baptist Parish is affirmed.

AFFIRMED

23-CA-421 5

SUSAN M. CHEHARDY CURTIS B. PURSELL

CHIEF JUDGE CLERK OF COURT

SUSAN S. BUCHHOLZ
FREDERICKA H. WICKER
CHIEF DEPUTY CLERK
JUDE G. GRAVOIS
MARC E. JOHNSON
ROBERT A. CHAISSON LINDA M. WISEMAN
STEPHEN J. WINDHORST
FIRST DEPUTY CLERK
JOHN J. MOLAISON, JR.
SCOTT U. SCHLEGEL FIFTH CIRCUIT
MELISSA C. LEDET
JUDGES 101 DERBIGNY STREET (70053)
DIRECTOR OF CENTRAL STAFF
POST OFFICE BOX 489
GRETNA, LOUISIANA 70054 (504) 376-1400

(504) 376-1498 FAX
www.fifthcircuit.org

NOTICE OF JUDGMENT AND CERTIFICATE OF DELIVERY
I CERTIFY THAT A COPY OF THE OPINION IN THE BELOW-NUMBERED MATTER HAS BEEN DELIVERED
IN ACCORDANCE WITH UNIFORM RULES - COURT OF APPEAL, RULE 2-16.4 AND 2-16.5 THIS DAY
AUGUST 29, 2023 TO THE TRIAL JUDGE, CLERK OF COURT, COUNSEL OF RECORD AND ALL PARTIES
NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL, AS LISTED BELOW:

23-CA-421
E-NOTIFIED
40TH DISTRICT COURT (CLERK)
HONORABLE NGHANA LEWIS (DISTRICT JUDGE)
KEVIN P. KLIBERT (APPELLEE)

MAILED
GRAYLIN BURL, JR. (APPELLANT) LEANDRE M. MILLET (APPELLEE)
2425 WILLIAMSBURG DRIVE ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY
LAPLACE, LA 70068 FORTIETH JUDICIAL DISTRIST
PARISH OF ST. JOHN THE BAPTIST
POST OFFICE BOX 399
1342 HIGHWAY 44 RIVER ROAD
RESERVE, LA 70084