State of Louisiana Versus John Wesley Patton

STATE OF LOUISIANA NO. 25-KH-152

VERSUS FIFTH CIRCUIT

JOHN WESLEY PATTON COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF LOUISIANA

ON APPLICATION FOR SUPERVISORY REVIEW FROM THE
TWENTY-FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF LOUISIANA
NO. 18-7474, DIVISION "J"
HONORABLE STEPHEN C. GREFER, JUDGE PRESIDING

August 13, 2025

STEPHEN J. WINDHORST
JUDGE

Panel composed of Judges Jude G. Gravois,
Stephen J. Windhorst, and Scott U. Schlegel

WRIT DENIED
SJW
JGG
SUS

DEFENDANT/RELATOR, JOHN WESLEY PATTON
In Proper Person

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT,
STATE OF LOUISIANA
Thomas J. Butler

WINDHORST, J.

In this timely pro se writ application, relator, John Wesley Patton, seeks

review of the trial court’s February 4, 2025 order denying his motion requesting 37

transcripts and motion to proceed in forma pauperis on the requested transcripts.

Relator contends he needed to receive the 37 transcripts and proceed in forma

pauperis to supplement his pending application for post-conviction relief (“APCR”).

DENIED AS MOOT

As an initial matter, we find relator’s request in this writ application is moot.

This writ application requests that we reverse the trial court’s refusal to order 37

transcripts free of charge. It was timely postmarked (March 31, 2025), but not

received by this court and filed until April 9, 2025. By then, the trial court had

already denied relator’s October 4, 2024 APCR, making his purported need for the

37 transcripts a moot issue. Without a properly filed and pending application for

post-conviction relief setting forth specific claims of errors which require the

requested documentation for support, an indigent inmate cannot make a showing of

particularized need absent a properly filed application for post-conviction relief. See

Bernard, infra. Thus, to the extent that relator requests free copies of transcripts

needed to support the claims raised in his October 4, 2024 APCR, which is no longer

pending, we deny relator’s writ application as moot.

MERITS

Nevertheless, we will review this writ application and the APCR on its merits.

We find that on the face of the ACPR, relator is not entitled to the relief requested.

La. C.Cr.P. art. 926 B states the requirements of a properly filed APCR, including:

B. The petition shall allege:
* * *
(3) A statement of the grounds upon which relief is sought, specifying
with reasonable particularity the factual basis for such relief;
[Emphasis added]
* * *

25-KH-152 1

Accordingly, an APCR which does not specifically allege a factual basis with

reasonable particularity has not satisfied this indispensable requirement of La.

C.Cr.P. art. 926 B(3).

An incarcerated indigent must demonstrate a particularized need before

receiving a copy of court transcripts free of charge.1 State ex rel. Simmons v. State,

93-275 (La. 12/16/94), 647 So.2d 1094, 1095 (per curiam). In State ex rel. Bernard

v. Criminal Dist. Court Section J., 94-2247 (La. 04/28/95), 653 So.2d 1174, the

Louisiana Supreme Court held that an indigent inmate cannot make a showing of

particularized need absent a properly filed application for post-conviction relief

which sets forth the specific claims of constitutional errors which required the

requested documentation for support.

The mere filing of an APCR, however, does not per se satisfy the required

“particularized need” for any of the 37 transcripts requested.2 Instead of specifically

alleging factual bases with reasonable particularity, from which a court may find that

there are “particularized needs” for the transcripts, relator contends that the 37

transcripts are needed to prepare the following conclusory post-conviction claims:

(1) ineffective assistance of counsel; (2) fabricated evidence; (3) violation of his

right to a public trial; (4) trial court misconduct and bias; (5) suppression of favorable

evidence; (6) denial of his right to a complete defense; (7) denial of his right to

present evidence during multiple hearings and trial; (8) perjured testimony; (9)

Fourth Amendment violations; (10) insufficient evidence; and (11) jury misconduct.

Clearly these do not specify any factual bases with reasonable particularity in

support of his claims; these are the conclusions relator/applicant is seeking to

1 Pursuant to State ex rel. Simmons, indigent inmates are generally entitled to the following documents free

of charge without showing a particularized need: (1) transcripts of their guilty plea colloquies; (2) copies of
the bill of information or grand jury indictment charging them with a crime; (3) copies of the district court
minutes for sentencing; (4) copies of transcripts of evidentiary hearings held on their applications for post-
conviction relief; and (5) copies of the documents committing them into custody.
2 Eight of the requested transcripts are the eight days of the jury trial, which have been thoroughly reviewed
on appeal. Any of applicant’s APCR claims which were assigned as error in the appeal were reviewed
therein, with benefit of the transcripts, and are not subject to another review as an APCR.

25-KH-152 2

convince the trial court to reach. Unsupported by reasonably particular allegations

of fact, they do not show any particularized need for the transcripts.

The requirement of specific allegations of factual bases stated with reasonable

particularity is not only a statutory requirement; it is clear in our constitutional

jurisprudence. Access [to transcripts free of charge] does not require the state to

underwrite the inmate’s efforts to overturn his conviction and sentence by providing

him generally with documents “to comb the record for errors.” Bernard, 653 So.2d

at 1175; State ex rel. Payton v. Thiel, 315 So.2d 40 (La. 1975). An inmate cannot

make a showing of a particularized need absent a properly filed application for post

conviction relief which sets out specific claims of constitutional errors requiring the

requested documentation for support. Id. Due process and equal protection surely

do not require the providing of transcripts to make petitioner aware in the first

instance of events or occurrences which constitute grounds for [post conviction

relief]. Bernard, supra, citing State v. Drozd, 116 Ariz. 330, 569 P.2d 272, 274 (Ct.

App. 1977). [Emphasis added.]

“Particularized needs” requires that the applicant allege the “events or

occurrences,” or some actions taken or omitted, which support or establish the

existence of the ground(s) in La. C.Cr.P. art. 930.3, and would be relevant to the

court in determining the appropriate disposition of the application under La. C.Cr.P.

arts. 928 or 929, or to show genuine questions of relevant facts sufficient to conduct

an evidentiary hearing pursuant to La. C.Cr.P. art. 930.

In this case, the APCR applicant alleges, for example, that he had ineffective

assistance of counsel, but the record shows that he had waived counsel and

proceeded pro se after an extensive and somewhat contentious pre-trial Faretta

hearing, nor does he explain in what manner standby counsel (presumably)

appointed by the court to assist him pre-trial and during trial, was ineffective. He

alleges fabricated evidence, but failed to state what or how. He alleges trial court

25-KH-152 3

misconduct and bias, but does not explain how or in what way. His remaining

claims, equally or more general conclusory allegations, likewise fail to explain with

any reasonable particularity. Particular needs cannot be realized in the nearly total

absence of specific allegations of factual bases—such as events, occurrences, acts,

or omissions—with reasonable particularity. As stated in Bernard, free transcripts

are not provided for the applicant to comb through, searching for unalleged errors,

events, or occurrences.

To his credit, Mr. Patton is quite frank in characterizing his October 4, 2024

APCR as a “shell application,” 3 which he apparently filed as such in order to satisfy

the necessity of having filed his APCR before requesting the free transcripts, thereby

correcting the fault pointed out in writ disposition 24-KH-258. But this “shell

application” containing eleven conclusory allegations does not establish facts or

raise questions of fact in support of any of the exclusive grounds enumerated in La.

C.Cr.P. art. 930.3. Merely providing a list of dates on which the requested free

transcripts occurred, without even so much as the purpose or subject matter of the

hearing and the gist of the testimony or discussion contained therein, does nothing

to establish particularized needs, support the claims made in the APCR, or enable

the court to determine the appropriate disposition under La. C.Cr.P. arts. 928, 929,

or 930.

CONCLUSION

We first find that relator’s request in this writ application is moot. Although

relator’s writ application was timely postmarked (March 31, 2025), it was received

by this court and filed on April 9, 2025. By then, the trial court had already denied

relator’s October 4, 2024 APCR. Thus, because relator’s requests for free copies of

3 Writ application, p. 22 (“Procedural History” section)

25-KH-152 4

37 transcripts are purportedly needed to support the claims raised in the October 4,

2024 APCR, which is no longer pending, we deny relator’s writ application as moot.

Moreover, relator does not describe his post-conviction claims with any

factual specificity. Even if relator’s writ application had been filed prior to the trial

court’s denial of his APCR, on the showing made, we find relator is not entitled to

the requested documents. Additionally, we point out that in a prior writ application

filed with this court, 24-KH-258, relator sought review of the district court’s ruling

denying his request for the same 37 transcripts. This court denied relator’s writ

application, finding that “relator’s allegations standing alone, in the absence of a

properly filed APCR, do not meet his burden of demonstrating a particularized need

for the requested documents.” See State v. Patton, 24-KH-258 (La. App. 5 Cir.

07/02/24). Here, even though relator had filed an APCR, we find relator did not

demonstrate a particularized need for the requested documents.

For all of the foregoing reasons, we deny this writ.

WRIT DENIED

25-KH-152 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
STEPHEN J. WINDHORST LINDA M. TRAN
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 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 13, 2025 TO THE TRIAL JUDGE, CLERK OF COURT, COUNSEL OF RECORD AND ALL PARTIES
NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL, AS LISTED BELOW:

25-KH-152
E-NOTIFIED
24TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT (CLERK)
HONORABLE STEPHEN C. GREFER (DISTRICT JUDGE)
THOMAS J. BUTLER (RESPONDENT)

MAILED
JOHN WESLEY PATTON #79121800
(RELATOR)
RAYBURN CORRECTIONAL CENTER
27268 HIGHWAY 21
ANGIE, LA 70426