Timothy J. Guidry v. J. Phil Haney

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

08-469

TIMOTHY J. GUIDRY

VERSUS

J. PHIL HANEY, ET AL., INDIVIDUALLY, AND IN HIS CAPACITY AS
DISTRICT ATTORNEY IN AND FOR THE 16TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT,
PARISH OF ST. MARTIN

************

APPEAL FROM THE
SIXTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF ST. MARTIN, NO. 90-71567
HONORABLE GERARD B. WATTIGNY, DISTRICT JUDGE

************

JAMES T. GENOVESE
JUDGE

************

Court composed of John D. Saunders, James T. Genovese, and Chris J. Roy, Sr.,*
Judges.

Roy, J., dissents.

AFFIRMED.

Timothy J. Guidry
D.O.C. No. 321539, Magnolia Hall-2
Louisiana State Penitentiary
Angola, LA 70712
DEFENDANT/APPELLANT - Pro Se

____________________
*Honorable Chris J. Roy, Sr., participated in this decision by appointment of the Louisiana
Supreme Court as Judge Pro Tempore.

Jeffery J. Trosclair
Assistant District Attorney, Sixteenth Judicial District
St. Mary Parish Courthouse, 5th Floor
Franklin, LA 70538
(337) 828-4100, Ext. 550
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE:
J. Phil Haney, et al., Individually, and in
His Capacity as District Attorney in and
for the Sixteenth Judicial District, Parish of St. Martin

GENOVESE, Judge.

In this civil action, Timothy A. Guidry, a convicted, aggravated rapist, filed a

Petition for a Writ of Mandamus seeking to compel the District Attorney for the

Sixteenth Judicial District Court (District Attorney) to produce certain audio and

video tapes of his rape victim. In response thereto, the District Attorney filed an

Exception of No Right of Action and Failure to Join an Indispensable Party pursuant

to La.Code Civ.P. art. 927(A)(3) and (5).1 The trial court granted the exception, and

Mr. Guidry appeals. For the following reasons, we affirm.

FACTS

On May 9, 1999, Timothy Guidry was indicted by a grand jury on eight counts

of aggravated rape. The matter proceeded to trial by jury on only one count of

aggravated rape for which he was found guilty. On December 21, 1992, Mr. Guidry

was sentenced to life imprisonment at hard labor without the benefit of parole,

probation, or suspension of sentence.

On July 30, 2003, Mr. Guidry filed a motion with the trial court seeking the

production of audio and video taped interviews of the victim as well as psychiatric

examination reports. The trial court denied the motion, and this court denied his

1
Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure Article 927(A) provides as follows:

A. The objections which may be raised through the peremptory exception
include but are not limited to the following:

(1) Prescription.

(2) Res judicata.

(3) Nonjoinder of a party under Articles 641 and 642.

(4) No cause of action.

(5) No right of action, or no interest in the plaintiff to institute the suit.

1

application for supervisory writs in the matter entitled State v. Guidry, 03-1206

(La.App. 3 Cir. 10/2/03).

On October 3, 2003, Mr. Guidry again requested audio and video taped

interviews of the victim. In response thereto, the clerk of court provided him with the

psychiatric report and the trial transcript of the victim’s testimony. Not satisfied with

these documents, Mr. Guidry contacted the clerk of court and advised him that the

records which had been forwarded to him were not the records which he sought.

Subsequently, the clerk of court advised Mr. Guidry that there were no audio tapes

in the record.

Mr. Guidry again filed a writ application with this court, which was denied in

the matter entitled State v. Guidry, 03-1415 (La.App. 3 Cir. 3/29/04), due to his

failure “to show a particularized need for the items he [sought].” The Louisiana

Supreme Court denied Mr. Guidry’s application for writs of certiorari. State v.

Guidry, 04-1229 (La. 4/1/95), 897 So.2d 594.

On January 18, 2007, Mr. Guidry filed a Petition for a Writ of Mandamus with

the trial court seeking the production of the previously requested audio and video

taped interviews of the rape victim. The District Attorney filed a Peremptory

Exception of No Right of Action and Failure to Join Indispensable Party. Following

a hearing on May 31, 2007, the trial court signed a judgment on June 27, 2004,

granting the exception of no right of action and dismissing Mr. Guidry’s claims. It

is from this judgment that he appeals.

ISSUES

Mr. Guidry has filed two appellate briefs with this court. Collectively, they

include the following issues:

2

1. Did the [d]istrict [c]ourt’s [a]pplication of the [p]ublic [r]ecords [a]ct,
under [La.R.S.] 44:1 et seq., [a]mount to an [a]buse of [d]iscretion,
[m]anifest [e]rror or [b]oth?

2. Did district court judge abuse his discretion or commit manifest error,
when he decided that [State ex rel. Bernard v. Criminal District Court
Section “J”, 94-2247 (La. 4/28/95), 653 So.2d 1174] was the applicable
law and controlling jurisprudence[] here[in]?

3. Did the district court judge abuse his discretion or commit manifest
error[] when he failed to consider the exceptions under La. R.S. 44:31.1?

4. Did the district court judge abuse his discretion or commit manifest
error[] when he concluded the Appellant failed to make showings of
particularized needs, absent a properly filed application for post-
conviction relief, which sets [sic] out specific claims of constitutional
errors, requiring requested supporting documentation?

LAW AND DISCUSSION

Generally, the Louisiana Public Records Act, La.R.S. 44:31, provides the

statutory authority for the inspection and reproduction of “any public record.”

Specifically, La.R.S. 44:31 (emphasis added) provides as follows:

A. Providing access to public records is a responsibility and duty
of the appointive or elective office of a custodian and his employees.

B. (1) Except as otherwise provided in this Chapter or as
otherwise specifically provided by law, and in accordance with the
provisions of this Chapter, any person of the age of majority may
inspect, copy, or reproduce any public record.

(2) Except as otherwise provided in this Chapter or as otherwise
specifically provided by law, and in accordance with the provisions of
this Chapter, any person may obtain a copy or reproduction of any
public record.

(3) The burden of proving that a public record is not subject to
inspection, copying, or reproduction shall rest with the custodian.

Thus, under the foregoing statutory authority, we begin with the premise that

“any person” may seek “any public record[,]” and, the burden of proving that a given

public record is not subject to the public records law is with the custodian of that

3

record. In the event such a person is denied the records sought, La.R.S. 44:35(A)2

provides a procedural device through which relief may be sought in the form of a writ

of mandamus, whereby the custodian may be compelled to produce the records

requested.

After being denied the public records which he sought, the instant matter arose

when Mr. Guidry filed a Petition for a Writ of Mandamus seeking to compel the

District Attorney to produce the audio and video tapes of his victim. In response

thereto, the District Attorney asserted that Mr. Guidry was not “any person” under

La.R.S. 44:31, and, therefore, he did not have a right of action under La.R.S. 44:35.

The trial court agreed with the District Attorney and granted the Exception of No

Right of Action. We agree with the trial court’s ruling on this issue.

Louisiana Revised Statutes 44:31.1 sets forth an exception to the term “any

person” who may avail themselves of the general provision of La.R.S. 44:31. It is

this exceptive provision which the District Attorney relied upon in support of his

Exception of No Right of Action. Louisiana Revised Statutes 44:31.1 (emphasis

added) provides as follows:

For the purposes of this Chapter, person does not include an
individual in custody after sentence following a felony conviction who
has exhausted his appellate remedies when the request for public
records is not limited to grounds upon which the individual could file

2
Louisiana Revised Statutes 44:35(A) provides:

A. Any person who has been denied the right to inspect or copy a record
under the provisions of this Chapter, either by a final determination of the custodian
or by the passage of five days, exclusive of Saturdays, Sundays, and legal public
holidays, from the date of his request without receiving a final determination in
writing by the custodian, may institute proceedings for the issuance of a writ of
mandamus, injunctive or declaratory relief, together with attorney’s fees, costs and
damages as provided for by this Section, in the district court for the parish in which
the office of the custodian is located.

4

for post conviction relief under Code of Criminal Procedure Article
930.3. Notwithstanding the provisions contained in R.S. 44:32, the
custodian may make an inquiry of any individual who applies for a
public record to determine if such individual is in custody after sentence
following a felony conviction who has exhausted his appellate remedies
and the custodian may make any inquiry necessary to determine if the
request of any such individual in custody for a felony conviction is
limited to grounds upon which such individual may file for post
conviction relief under Code of Criminal Procedure Article 930.3.

As noted by the trial court, and as set forth in the record, Mr. Guidry is

undisputedly “an individual in custody after sentence following a felony conviction.”

Thus, the next inquiry in determining the applicability of La.R.S. 44:31.1 is whether

he “has exhausted his appellate remedies” and is seeking public records which are

“not limited to grounds upon which [he] could file for post conviction relief.”

We find from the record that Mr. Guidry has in fact exhausted his appellate

remedies. His conviction for aggravated rape was on February 28, 1991. On

December 7, 1994, this court affirmed his conviction and sentence. State v. Guidry,

94-678 (La.App. 3 Cir. 12/7/94), 647 So.2d 502. Consequently, Mr. Guidry’s

conviction and sentence became final in January 1995, after the time limitations for

his filing an application for writs of review and/or certiorari with the Louisiana

Supreme Court had expired.

The final determination to be made is whether any post conviction relief

exception set forth in La. R.S. 44:31.1 is applicable to the facts in this case.

Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure Article 930.33 sets forth the grounds for the

3
Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure Article 930.3 provides as follows:

If the petitioner is in custody after sentence for conviction for an offense,
relief shall be granted only on the following grounds:

(1) The conviction was obtained in violation of the constitution of the United
States or the state of Louisiana;

(2) The court exceeded its jurisdiction;

5

filing of an application for post conviction relief; however, that criminal statute is

qualified by the exceptions found in La.Code Crim.P. art. 930.8. Thus, we must

determine whether Mr. Guidry’s claim of unknown, newly discovered facts constitute

an exception to the time limitation for the filing of an application for post conviction

relief is applicable to the case at bar.

Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure Article 930.8(A)(1)(emphasis added)

provides that an application for post conviction relief which is otherwise untimely

may be considered if “[t]he application alleges, and the petitioner proves or the state

admits, that the facts upon which the claim is predicated were not known to the

petitioner or his attorney.”

Mr. Guidry’s Petition for a Writ of Mandamus contains a recitation of contents

of the correspondence which he sent to the District Attorney in an effort to obtain the

audio and video tapes in question. The portion of said correspondence relative to an

application for post conviction includes the following:

Moreover, the requestor has standing or right of action to seek the
audio/video records because he has grounds that would support a claim
for post conviction relief. La. R.S. 44:31.1; La. C.Cr.P. art. 930.3,
where you or your assignees have suppressed or otherwise withheld
audio/video records that would exonerate. Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S.

(3) The conviction or sentence subjected him to double jeopardy;

(4) The limitations on the institution of prosecution had expired;

(5) The statute creating the offense for which he was convicted and sentenced
is unconstitutional; or

(6) The conviction or sentence constitute the ex post facto application of law
in violation of the constitution of the United States or the state of Louisiana.

(7) The results of DNA testing performed pursuant to an application granted
under Article 926.1 proves by clear and convincing evidence that the petitioner is
factually innocent of the crime for which he was convicted.

6

83 (1963). Also, Louisiana law envisions that Mr. Guidry can submit
such evidence in an excusable and fresh post-conviction application,
alleging “. . . facts upon which the claim is predicated were not known
to the petitioner or his attorney.” La. C.Cr.P. art. 930.8(A)(1). State v.
Lanieu, 885 So.2d 512 (La. 5/1/04). So too, “even if exculpatory
material was at sometime ‘knowable,’ an application based on it may
still qualify under the new facts exception to the time bar, subject to the
opportunity provided the State by art. 938.8(B) [sic] to show prejudice
arising from the delay.” Carlin v. Cain. 706 So.2d 968 (La. 1998).

However, the record does not support Mr. Guidry’s assertion of newly learned facts.

To the contrary, the public records which he seeks are audio and video tapes of his

victim, which were recorded prior to his criminal trial in 1991, and which were

known to Mr. Guidry and discussed in previous filings by him, including his post

conviction relief application filed in 1997. These public records, therefore, were

known to Mr. Guidry and, thus, do not establish any exception within the ambit of

La.R.S. 930.8(A)(1).

Additionally, although we acknowledge Mr. Guidry’s assertion that the trial

court erred in its reliance on State ex rel. Bernard v. Criminal District Court Section

“J”, 94-2247 (La. 4/28/95), 653 So.2d 1174, we need not address this contention

given our findings herein.

Based upon the foregoing, we conclude that Mr. Guidry has no right of action

under La.R.S. 44:35. He is statutorily prohibited from obtaining the audio and video

tapes since he is in custody for a felony conviction, his sentence has been imposed,

and his appellate remedies have been exhausted. La.R.S. 44:31.1 Additionally, he

has not alleged any of the enumerated grounds which would support an application

for post conviction relief, nor has he established the applicability of an exception to

the time limitation for filing an application for post conviction relief. La.Code

Crim.P. art. 930.3; La.Code Crim.P. art. 930.8. Mr. Guidry, therefore, is not “any

7

person” entitled to the relief provided under La.R.S. 44:35. We, therefore, affirm the

judgment of the trial court granting the District Attorney’s exception of no right of

action.

DECREE

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Costs

are assessed against Timothy J. Guidry.

AFFIRMED.

8