State of Louisiana Versus Eddie J. Armant

STATE OF LOUISIANA NO. 24-KH-515

VERSUS FIFTH CIRCUIT

EDDIE J. ARMANT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF LOUISIANA

November 14, 2024

Linda Wiseman
First Deputy Clerk

IN RE EDDIE J. ARMANT

APPLYING FOR SUPERVISORY WRIT FROM THE TWENTY-THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT,
PARISH OF ST JAMES, STATE OF LOUISIANA, DIRECTED TO THE HONORABLE JASON VERDIGETS,
DIVISION "A", NUMBER 2584

Panel composed of Judges Jude G. Gravois,
Marc E. Johnson, and Scott U. Schlegel

WRIT OF MANDAMUS GRANTED IN PART; DENIED IN PART

Relator, Eddie J. Armant, filed a petition for writ of mandamus asking this
Court to order the trial court to “sign the order” included with his “Notice of Intent
to Appeal Under Uniform Rules, Courts of Appeal Rules 4-2 and 4-3” (“Notice of
Intent”). Relator indicates that he filed the Notice of Intent because he intends to
seek review of the trial court’s denial of his “Second or Subsequent Uniform
Application for Postconviction Relief.” Relator also asks for the appointment of a
Louisiana Supreme Court justice to sit on the panel conducting the review, “due to
the unusual and bias (sic) actions of the 23rd Judicial District Court.”

According to the online record, relator’s APCR was filed on November 15,
2022. The trial court denied the APCR as repetitive pursuant to La. C.Cr.P. art.
930.4 on November 22nd, but it did not fill in the year of its decision in the space
provided on the APCR form. Therefore, we cannot determine if the trial court
ruled on the APCR in 2022 or 2023. In addition, the order denying the APCR in
the online record contains a notation, “Received From Judge 2/5/24,” and further
indicates that notice of the ruling was sent “Via Regular Mail” on February 8,
2024.

Relator contends that after he received the ruling, he submitted a request on
February 29, 2024, to the business office at Hunt Correctional Center to withdraw
funds and mail his Notice of Intent to the 23rd Judicial District Court Clerk of
Court.1 Relator provides a receipt indicating that the correctional center processed

1
The actual date of filing for pleadings filed by inmates is the date the pleading is delivered to the prison
authorities. State v. Nevers-Hawkins, 18-352, p. 2 (La. App. 5 Cir. 8/30/18), 2018 WL 4171728.

relator’s request on March 4, 2024. The online record does not contain a copy of
relator’s Notice of Intent.2 Therefore, we are unable to determine whether the trial
court ever set a return date on relator’s Notice of Intent.3

Based on the receipt provided by relator indicating that the Notice of Intent
was mailed to the 23rd Judicial District Court Clerk of Court, we grant relator’s
request for mandamus relief in part, transfer relator’s Notice of Intent to the trial
court for consideration, and instruct the trial court to rule on relator’s Notice of
Intent by setting a 30-day return date for relator to file an application for
supervisory review with this Court. We deny relator’s writ of mandamus to the
extent he requests the appointment of a Louisiana Supreme Court justice.

Gretna, Louisiana, this 14th day of November, 2024.

SUS
JGG
MEJ

2
A copy of the Notice of Intent and mailing receipt provided with the writ application are attached to this
ruling to assist with the identification of the document.
3
We recognize that relator’s Notice of Intent is somewhat confusing as it contains language indicating his
intent to seek supervisory review, but the proposed order does not include language asking for a return
date to file a writ application. Instead, the proposed order contains language asking the trial court to grant
an appeal, to appoint the appellate project to represent relator, and to set a return date for the lodging of
the record with this Court. There is no right of appeal from a judgment denying an application for post-
conviction relief; the proper procedure for this claim is by application for supervisory writ. State v.
Johnson, 98-650 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2/10/99), 729 So.2d 55, 56. But pro se filings are subject to less
stringent standards than formal pleadings filed by lawyers. Benoit v. Guerin, 22-547 (La. App. 5 Cir.
1/18/23), 357 So.3d 434, 441, writ denied, 23-250 (La. 6/7/23), 361 So.3d 966, citing State ex rel. Egana
v. State, 00-2351 (La. 9/22/00), 771 So.2d 638. A pro se petitioner is not to be denied access to the courts
for review of his case on the merits by the overzealous application of form and pleading requirements or
hyper-technical interpretations of court rules. Id.

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 11/14/2024 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-KH-515
E-NOTIFIED
23rd Judicial District Court (Clerk)
Hon. Jason Verdigets (DISTRICT JUDGE)
No Attorney(s) were ENOTIFIED

MAILED
Eddie J. Armant #150261 (Relator) Honorable Ricky L. Babin (Respondent)
Elayn Hunt Correctional Center District Attorney
6925 Highway 74 Post Office Box 66
St. Gabriel, LA 70776 Convent, LA 70737