Celius Gray Versus Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal

CELIUS GRAY NO. 24-K-461

VERSUS FIFTH CIRCUIT

FIFTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEAL COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF LOUISIANA

October 16, 2024

Linda Wiseman
First Deputy Clerk

IN RE CELIUS GRAY

APPLYING FOR SUPERVISORY WRIT FROM THE TWENTY-FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT,
PARISH OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF LOUISIANA, DIRECTED TO THE HONORABLE DONALD A.
ROWAN, JR., DIVISION "L", NUMBER 20-5560

Panel composed of Judges Susan M. Chehardy,
Fredericka Homberg Wicker, and Marc E. Johnson

WRIT DENIED

On October 1, 2024, relator, Celius Gray, filed a pro se writ application in

this Court entitled, “Emergency Petition for Extraordinary Relief in the Nature of a

Writ of Mandamus, Temporary Restraining Order, Stay Order, and Preliminary

Injunction,” requesting relief on several issues. For the following reasons, we deny

the writ application.

In February of 2021, relator was indicted by a Jefferson Parish grand jury for

first degree rape, in violation of La. R.S. 14:42. There have been several motions

and rulings pertaining to relator’s competency in this matter. The record shows

that after a sanity hearing on March 6, 2024, the trial court found relator

incompetent to proceed and remanded him to a State mental health facility.

On March 14, 2024 and July 16, 2024, relator filed motions for writ of

habeas corpus with the trial court. On August 6, 2024, relator filed a writ

application seeking mandamus relief from this Court, because the trial court had

24-K-461

not ruled on these motions. On August 20, 2024, in Gray v. Lopinto, 24-354 (La.

App. 5 Cir. 8/20/24), 2024 WL 3880773 (unpublished writ disposition), this Court

granted the writ application for the limited purpose of ordering the trial court to

rule on relator’s motions for writ of habeas corpus, or to provide reasons to this

Court why it cannot rule on the motions, within 15 days.

In the present writ application, relator seeks mandamus relief for

enforcement of this Court’s August 20, 2024 order, arguing the trial court has

failed to comply with it. However, the record shows that on September 18, 2024,

the trial court held a competency hearing and, at the conclusion of the hearing, the

trial court ordered that relator be re-evaluated by Dr. Richard Richoux, an expert in

forensic psychiatry. The Court also scheduled another hearing in the competency

proceedings for October 16, 2024.

As we pointed out in our August 20, 2024 disposition in Gray, “[w]hen the

question of the defendant’s mental incapacity to proceed is raised, there shall be no

further steps in the criminal prosecution, except the institution of prosecution, until

the defendant is found to have the mental capacity to proceed.” La. C.Cr.P. art.

642. The proceedings shall be suspended once the court finds the defendant

incompetent. La. C.Cr.P. art. 648(A).

Because relator was previously found incompetent and another hearing on

his competency is currently pending, relator is not entitled to mandamus relief at

this time. A ruling on relator’s competency will determine whether the trial court

must rule on his outstanding motions.

Relator also argues the trial court has not ruled on his Motion to Substitute

Counsel, which was set for hearing on September 18, 2024. However, the record

shows this motion is currently set for hearing on October 16, 2024, the same date

as the competency hearing. Therefore, relator is not entitled to mandamus relief.

2

Relator also asks this Court to dismiss the indictment based on a variety of

grounds, including unconstitutional access to the court, attorney negligence and

malpractice, undue delay, and unlawful custody. However, this Court will only

consider issues that were first submitted to the trial court for consideration. See

Uniform Rules-Courts of Appeal, Rule 1-3.1 Because these issues have not been

presented to or ruled upon by the trial court, relator’s request is outside of this

Court’s scope of supervisory review. Furthermore, even if relator had filed for

such relief in the trial court, we point out that the trial court can only address such

issues when relator is found to have the mental capacity to proceed. See La.

C.Cr.P. art. 642.

Based on the foregoing, we deny the writ application.

Gretna, Louisiana, this 16th day of October, 2024.

FHW
SMC
MEJ

1
Rule 1-3 provides:
The scope of review in all cases within the appellate and supervisory jurisdiction of the
Courts of Appeal shall be provided by LSA-Const. Art. 5, §10(B), and as otherwise
provided by law. The Courts of Appeal shall review issues that were submitted to the trial
court and that are contained in specifications and assignments of error, unless the interest
of justice clearly requires otherwise.

3

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
STEPHEN J. WINDHORST LINDA M. WISEMAN
JOHN J. MOLAISON, JR.
FIRST DEPUTY CLERK
SCOTT U. SCHLEGEL
TIMOTHY S. MARCEL 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 DISPOSITION CERTIFICATE OF DELIVERY
I CERTIFY THAT A COPY OF THE DISPOSITION IN THE FOREGOING MATTER HAS BEEN
TRANSMITTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH UNIFORM RULES - COURT OF APPEAL, RULE 4-6 THIS
DAY 10/16/2024 TO THE TRIAL JUDGE, THE TRIAL COURT CLERK OF COURT, AND AT LEAST ONE OF
THE COUNSEL OF RECORD FOR EACH PARTY, AND TO EACH PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY
COUNSEL, AS LISTED BELOW:

24-K-461
E-NOTIFIED
24th Judicial District Court (Clerk)
Honorable Donald A. Rowan, Jr. (DISTRICT JUDGE)
Thomas J. Butler (Respondent)

MAILED
Celius Gray #1000677028 (Relator)
Jefferson Parish Correctional Center
P. O. Box 388
Gretna, LA 70054