State of Louisiana v. Stephen K. Lanphier

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

KA06-1509/KA06-1510
KH06-1020/KH06-1135

STATE OF LOUISIANA

VERSUS

STEPHEN K. LANPHIER

**********

APPEAL FROM THE
FOURTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF CALCASIEU, NOS. 8662-05 & 20155-03
HONORABLE D. KENT SAVOIE, DISTRICT JUDGE

**********

MARC T. AMY
JUDGE

**********
Court composed of Ulysses Gene Thibodeaux, Chief Judge, Marc T. Amy, and
Glenn B. Gremillion, Judges.

RULING AFFIRMED; MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED. WRIT IN
DOCKET NUMBER KH06-1020 DENIED; WRIT IN DOCKET NUMBER
KH06-1135 DENIED AS MOOT.

John F. DeRosier
District Attorney
Carla S. Sigler
Assistant District Attorney
Post Office Box 3206
Lake Charles, LA 70602-3206
(337) 437-3400
COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE:
State of Louisiana

Edward K. Bauman
Louisiana Appellate Project
Post Office Box 1641
Lake Charles, LA 70602
(337) 491-0570
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT:
Stephen K. Lanphier

Stephen K. Lanphier
Pro Se
M.C.C. D Dorm
158 Treatment Plant Road
Tallulah, LA 71282

AMY, Judge.

The defendant, Stephen K. Lanphier, filed a motion to request the production

of the district attorney’s file on January 3, 2006. The motion was denied by the trial

court on July 26, 2006.

The defendant filed both writs and appeals asking this court to review the trial

court’s denial of his motion to request the production of the district attorney’s file.

Additionally, the defendant filed a writ asking this court to review a request he filed

with the trial court seeking a copy of the transcript of the hearing on his motion. The

writs filed by the defendant in docket numbers KH06-1020 and KH06-1135 were

consolidated with the appeals filed as docket numbers KA06-1509 and KA06-1510.

Appellate counsel has filed an Anders brief in this matter. For the following

reasons, we affirm the trial court’s ruling and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

Additionally, the writ in docket number KH06-1020 is denied, and the writ in docket

number KH06-1135 is moot.

Discussion

Request for Production of District Attorney’s File

Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396 (1967), the

defendant’s appellate counsel filed a brief stating that he could find no errors on

appeal that would support reversal of the defendant’s convictions or sentences. Thus,

counsel seeks to withdraw. As this is not an appeal from a conviction and sentence,

but an appeal from a documents request, the standard Anders review involving the

defendant’s convictions and sentences is inapplicable here. Rather, the Anders

review performed below involves consideration of the appeal involving the

documents request.

In docket number KH06-1020, the defendant asks this court to review the trial

court’s denial of his motion to request the production of the district attorney’s file.

Additionally, in docket number KH06-1135, the defendant seeks a copy of the

transcript of the denial of his motion.

The defendant sought production of the district attorney’s file by way of

La.Code Crim.P. art. 822(B), which provides that “if at any time after sentence is

imposed, the defendant seeks the production of all or any portion of the district

attorney’s file in a criminal proceeding, the request for production shall be presented

by written motion, which shall be tried contradictorily with the district attorney.”

In his motion, the defendant contended that he needed the documents in order

to perfect his application for post-conviction relief. Subsequently, at the hearing on

his motion, the defendant stated the following: “my particularized need for the

production of District Attorney’s files is to . . . perfect the post-conviction claim of

ineffective assistance of counsel, which is in violation of my constitutional rights and

under Article -- Criminal Code of Procedure Article Number 822 [(B)].” Additionally,

in his application for supervisory writs, the defendant stated that he required the

documents in order to complete his application for post-conviction relief.

In State ex rel. McKnight v. State, 98-2258, p. 1 (La.App. 1 Cir. 12/3/98), 742

So.2d 894, 896, the first circuit discussed Article 822(B) as follows:

Article 822 does not apply to requests for records under the Public
Records Law, and it does not establish a separate procedure by which an
inmate can secure documents from the district attorney. The purpose of
this portion of [A]rticle 822 is to prevent district courts from ordering
the production of portions of the district attorney’s file without the
district attorney first receiving notification of the motion.

See also State v. Paige, 03-874 (La.App. 4 Cir. 6/4/03), 849 So.2d 813, writ denied,

03-1957 (La. 9/5/03), 852 So.2d 1027.

2

Since the defendant sought a copy of the district attorney’s file through the

criminal court, we presume he is seeking copies of the documents free of charge

pursuant to State ex rel. Bernard v. Criminal District Court Section J., 94-2247 (La.

4/28/95), 653 So.2d 1174. In Bernard, the supreme court stated:

This Court’s jurisprudence requires lower courts to provide
indigent inmates with copies of certain types of documents as of right.
State ex rel. Simmons v. State, 93-0175 (La. 12/16/94), 647 So.2d 1094.
As to all other documents, an indigent inmate has the constitutional right
to free copies only in those instances in which he shows that denial of
the request will deprive him of an “adequate opportunity to present [his]
claims fairly.” United States v. MacCollom, 426 U.S. 317, 324, 96 S.Ct.
2086, 2091, 48 L.Ed.2d 666 (1976) (quoting Ross v. Moffitt, 417 U.S.
600, 616, 94 S.Ct. 2437, 2447, 41 L.Ed.2d 341 (1974)). Meeting that
constitutional threshold requires a showing of what this Court has called
“particularized need.”

For the inmate requesting documents in anticipation of a collateral
attack on his conviction, adequate opportunity to present his claims
requires first and foremost meaningful access to the post-conviction
procedures provided by the legislature in La.C.Cr.P. art. 924 et seq.
That access 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.” State ex rel. Payton v. Thiel,
315 So.2d 40 (La.1975). If an inmate has identified specific
constitutional errors in the proceedings leading to his conviction and
sentence, as required by La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.3, he may also “specify[ ]
with reasonable particularity the factual basis for such relief,” and
thereby meet the initial requirements set forth in La.C.Cr.P. art. 926 for
filing the application and invoking the post conviction articles. An
inmate therefore cannot make a showing of 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. See Payton, supra . . . .

Id. at 1175 (alteration in original).

The defendant has not filed an application for post-conviction relief. He has,

therefore, failed to meet his burden of demonstrating a particularized need for the

documents requested from the district attorney. Accordingly, the writ filed as docket

number KH06-1020 is denied. As the appellate record contains a copy of the

3

transcript sought by the defendant in the writ filed as docket number KH06-1135, the

writ is moot.

The defendant, in his pro se brief, raised several issues. We reviewed those

issues, and they do not support the granting of the defendant’s motion to request the

production of the district attorney’s file.

We find no errors which would support an assignment of error on appeal.

Therefore, appellate counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted.

DECREE

For the above reasons, the ruling of the trial court denying the defendant’s

motion to request the production of the district attorney’s file is affirmed. Counsel’s

motion to withdraw is granted. The writ filed as docket number KH06-1020 is

denied, and the writ filed as docket number KH06-1135 is denied as moot.

RULING AFFIRMED; MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED. WRIT IN
DOCKET NUMBER KH06-1020 DENIED; WRIT IN DOCKET NUMBER
KH06-1135 DENIED AS MOOT.

4