State of Louisiana v. Michael Joseph Mayeaux

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

KA 19-679

STATE OF LOUISIANA

VERSUS

MICHAEL JOSEPH MAYEAUX

**********

APPEAL FROM THE
TWELFTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF AVOYELLES, NO. 186,900 A
HONORABLE KERRY LYNDON SPRUILL, DISTRICT JUDGE

**********

D. KENT SAVOIE
JUDGE

**********

Court composed of Billy Howard Ezell, Shannon J. Gremillion, and D. Kent Savoie,
Judges.

AFFIRMED.

EZELL, J., concurs.

Charles A. Riddle, III
District Attorney, 12th JDC
P. O. Box 1200
Marksville, LA 71351
(318) 253-6587
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE:
State of Louisiana

Edward Kelly Bauman
La Appellate Project
P. O. Box 1641
Lake Charles, LA 70602-1641
(337) 491-0570
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT:
Michael Joseph Mayeaux

SAVOIE, Judge.

Defendant, Michael Joseph Mayeaux, committed the September 13, 2016

murders of his grandparents, Eloise “Patti” and Hilman “T-Coon” Mayeaux. He was

arrested on two counts of first degree murder. On September 26, 2016, prior to

indictment, Defendant made preliminary filings in the trial court, namely a notice of

enrollment and limited scope of representation, an assertion of constitutional rights,

and a motion to preserve evidence and the crime scene. The indictment, filed on

October 27, 2016, charged Defendant with two counts of second degree murder,

violations of La.R.S. 14:30.1.

On November 2, 2016, Defendant pled not guilty to the charges. He withdrew

his plea and pled not guilty and not guilty by reason of insanity on January 17, 2017.

On the same date, the trial court appointed a Sanity Commission composed of Dr.

L.J. Mayeux and Dr. John Simoneaux to evaluate Defendant and report on his

competency to proceed and whether or not he was sane at the time of the commission

of the alleged offenses.

On May 15, 2017, after reviewing reports of the Sanity Commission, the trial

court issued an Order finding Defendant lacked mental capacity to understand the

proceedings against him or to assist in his defense. The Order further committed

Defendant to the custody of the Louisiana Department of Health and Eastern

Louisiana Mental Health System in Jackson, Louisiana.

On October 30, 2017, Dr. Mayeux submitted a second report to the trial court

indicating that, after reviewing reports of Defendant’s treatment over the past

months and the opinions of staff at Eastern Louisiana Mental Health System, he was

now of the opinion that Defendant possessed the requisite mental capacity to proceed

to trial and assist counsel in his defense. That opinion was based on the October 20,

2017 report of evaluating psychiatrists, Dr. David Hale and Dr. Sanket Vyas, which

indicated Defendant had “a rational as well as a factual understanding of the

proceedings against him/her and has a sufficient present ability to consult with

his/her lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding.”

On June 19, 2018, Defendant filed a Motion for Sanity Commission to

Evaluate Defendant’s State of Mind at the Time of the Alleged Offense, noting that

the reports of Drs. Mayeux and Simoneaux and the Jackson facility failed to address

that issue. The trial court signed an Order stating:

IT IS ORDERED that this Honorable Court order and appoint a
sanity commission specifically to address and evaluate [Defendant’s]
state of mind at the time of the commission of the abovementioned
offense or in the alternative, that if this Honorable Court should deny
this Motion . . . , that the experts appointed in the initial sanity
commission be ordered to re-evaluate and render an opinion on
defendant’s state of mind at the time of the offense, or that the District
Attorney show cause on the 19 day of July, 2018, at 9:00 o’clock a.m.
why relief prayed for in the defendant’s Motion . . . should not be
granted.

On August 3, 2019, Defendant filed a Motion to Vacate Finding of

Competency and alternative Motion for Sanity Commission. Therein, Defendant

noted the trial court’s ruling on January 24, 2018, that Defendant was competent to

stand trial, and argued that the Sanity Commission doctors’ opinions relied upon by

the trial court were not based upon their independent evaluations, but rather only on

reports from Eastern Louisiana Mental Health System. The trial court thereafter

rendered an Order the same date setting Defendant’s motion for hearing on August

8, 2018.

On August 8, 2018, the District Attorney filed a Motion and Order

Appointing Sanity Commission, which was signed by the trial court. The Order

appointed a Sanity Commission composed of Dr. Mayeux and Dr. Simoneaux, who

2

were to re-examine Defendant and report to the trial court on his competency to

proceed and whether he was sane at the time of the commission of the offenses.

Thereafter, Dr. Simoneaux evaluated Defendant on August 23, 2018, and

issued a report indicating that Defendant understood the proceedings against him

and was able to assist in his defense. Additionally, the report stated Defendant had

“the capacity to communicate facts and to relate to his lawyer.”

On August 30, 2018, the District Attorney filed another Motion and Order

Appointing Sanity Commission, which was signed by the trial court. It ordered the

appointment of a Sanity Commission composed solely of Dr. Mayeux, who was to

re-examine Defendant and report to the trial court on his competency to proceed and

whether he was sane at the time of the commission of the offenses.

Dr. Mayeux then issued a report August 31, 2018, indicating Defendant knew

he was charged with the murders of his grandparents. Dr. Mayeux noted Defendant

had indicated to him that his grandfather had been shot, even though that information

was not public at that time. That, coupled with Defendant’s hiding in a closet after

the murders, led to Dr. Mayeux’s belief that those factors supported a finding of

Defendant’s sanity. Dr. Mayeaux’s report further indicated that Defendant knew the

identity of his attorney and had met with him. The report also noted that Defendant

told Dr. Mayeux he understood the severity of the crimes, how the judicial system

works, and that he knew Dr. Simoneaux had categorized him as being sane and able

to proceed in the litigation.

Dr. Mayeux’s August 31, 2018 report further noted, “On [Defendant’s] own

admission he states he does not think he is insane.” It reflected that Defendant

realized the severity of the charges and understood “he could be in jail for the

remainder of his life.” Dr. Mayeux opined that Defendant would be able to take the

3

witness stand to answer questions and to assist his attorney in his defense. He further

indicated that he agreed with Dr. Simoneaux’s testing and results and with his

determination that Defendant “is sane and suffers from no mental disorders.” Dr.

Mayeux concluded Defendant was sane at the time he committed the crimes and had

normal organizational skills. He also concluded Defendant “knows right from

wrong and is able to assist in his defense.” Dr. Mayeux also noted that Defendant’s

Tourette’s Syndrome “has no correlation to sanity[,]” and that Defendant showed no

remorse for the crimes of which he was accused.

On October 15, 2018, Defendant filed a Motion to Transfer to Correct

Division of Court, seeking to transfer the matter from Division A to Division B.

Therein, Defendant stated that the matter had initially been assigned to Division B

on September 27, 2016; but that on October 27, 2016, the Bill of Indictment reflected

the name of Judge Spruill, who presided over Division A. Thereafter, the matter

proceeded in Division A. The trial court denied the Motion on October 16, 2018, and

Defendant sought supervisory writs with this court. This court denied Defendant’s

writ application on October 26, 2018. State v. Mayeaux, 18-856 (La.App. 3 Cir.

10/26/18) (unpublished opinion).

The matter proceeded to jury trial beginning October 29, 2018. Prior to the

conclusion of trial, Defendant’s counsel sought a continuance and/or recess to allow

time to obtain Defendant’s records from Crossroads/Longleaf Mental Hospital,

which he argued he was not aware of until the testimony of Defendant’s mother,

Jeanette Mayeaux. The trial court denied the motion.

A unanimous jury found Defendant guilty as charged on both counts on

November 1, 2018. The trial court sentenced him to two sentences of life

imprisonment at hard labor without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of

4

sentences to run consecutively to each other and to any other previously-imposed

sentence on December 18, 2018. The trial judge strongly recommended

“appropriate psychiatric medical treatment during [Defendant’s] incarceration, if

available.”

Defendant filed a motion for new trial on November 15, 2018, alleging that

newly discovered evidence was disclosed on the day before the trial concluded.

However, court minutes indicate the trial court ordered “that the motion is hereby

vacated and withdrawn pursuant to oral motion” by Defendant’s counsel.

Defendant now seeks review of his convictions and sentences. He asserts the

following as assignments of error:

I. The trial court erred in failing to transfer Michael Mayeaux’s
case to the correct division of court.

II. The trial court erred in failing to grant a continuance when it was
only discovered the last day of trial that Michael Mayeaux was a
patient at Crossroads/Longleaf Mental Hospital.

ERRORS PATENT

In accordance with La.Code Crim.P. art. 920, all appeals are reviewed for

errors patent on the face of the record. After reviewing the record, we find no errors

patent.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NUMBER 1

Defendant contends the trial court erred by denying his motion to transfer this

case from Division A to Division B of the twelfth judicial district court since the

case had initially been allotted to Division B on September 27, 2016.

On October 15, 2018, just two weeks prior to the scheduled October 29, 2018

trial date, Defendant filed a motion to transfer his case to Division B. At the hearing

on Defendant’s motion, defense counsel recognized that the proceedings had taken

5

place in Division A since the indictment in October 2016, but argued that the case

was, nevertheless, a Division B case in accordance with the court’s rules, which

state:

Criminal cases shall be allotted to each division according to the
date the offense is charged to have been committed. Alternating
calendar weeks shall be pre-assigned to each division and the allotment
to a particular division shall be based upon said weekly assignments
and the date of the alleged offense. After a criminal case has been
allotted, all matters relating to said case shall be taken up by the Judge
of the division to which the case has been allotted, provided, however,
that filings and uncontested matters may be taken up before either
division.

La.Dist.Ct.R. 14.0, App. 14.0A (12th JDC),

In addition, the twelfth judicial district court, in Appendix A to the District

Court Rules, adopted La.Dist.Ct.R. 14.1, which states:

(a) Unless a different method is set forth in Appendix 14.1, if a
defendant has a felony case pending and previously allotted, any new
felony arrest for that defendant shall be allotted to the division to which
the pending felony was allotted. This “felonies-following-felonies” rule
also applies to any pending felony arrests for a co-defendant with a new
arrest and billed as a co-defendant.

(b) For purposes of this Rule, a felony case remains pending until
any of the following events has occurred:

(1) a bill of information or indictment is filed or amended,
reducing the case to a misdemeanor;

(2) the District Attorney's Office enters a nolle prosequi in
a case; or

(3) there is an adjudication of guilty by plea or trial.

Here, Defendant’s case was initially allotted to Division B based upon the date

of the offense; however, because Defendant had previously pled guilty to a different

felony in Division A, and was on probation for that felony at the time of the offenses

at issue here, the instant case was assigned to Division A.

6

The trial judge denied Defendant’s motion explaining the following practice

among the judges of twelfth judicial district court:

previously existing probation or the pending probation is a determining
factor of what division handles the case. Not the date of the offense
well it is true that the date of the offense on the calendar it would appear
that this would be a division B case, in truth and in fact it is an exception
to the ordinary rule and it’s correctly allotted to Division A and it’s
going to be maintained as a Division A case as there is a pending active
felony probation at the time of the commission of the felony charges
that are pending for trial in this case.

On October 25, 2018, Defendant filed a writ application with this court

seeking review of the trial court’s denial of his motion to transfer. On October 26,

2018, this court issued a ruling denying Defendant’s writ application and stating as

follows:

WRIT DENIED: The defendant has not alleged or shown he is
prejudiced nor is there any allegation or showing that the District
Attorney attempted to manipulate the allotment. See State v. Nunez,
15-1473 (La. 1/27/16), 187 So.3d 964. The case has been handled pre-
trial in Sec. A without objection since indictment on October 27, 2016,
and the orderly administration of justice will be best served by
maintaining the current trial date, which has been scheduled for
Monday, October 29, 2018. Under the particular circumstances of this
case, we find no error in the trial court’s ruling.

State v. Mayeaux, 18-856 (La.App. 3 Cir. 10/26/18) (unpublished opinion).

Judge Ezell dissented, stating as follows:

Ezell, J. dissents and would grant the writ for the following reasons.
Defendant’s case was allotted to Division B of the Twelfth Judicial
District Court according to La.Dist.Ct.R. 14.0, App. 14.0A, 12th JDC.
The Twelfth Judicial District Court has adopted an exception to that
rule that allows allotment for a felony case to the same division as a
defendant’s pending felony. Defendant’s prior felony case is no longer
pending, according to the rules adopted by the Twelfth Judicial District,
because it was adjudicated by his guilty plea. Pursuant to the rules
adopted by the Twelfth Judicial District Court, this case may not
properly be heard in Division A.

Id.

7

On appeal, Defendant again seeks review of the trial court’s denial of his

motion to transfer the matter to Division B, arguing that the prior denial of a

supervisory writ application does not preclude reconsideration of the same issue on

appeal. State v. Castleberry, 98-1388 (La. 4/13/99), 758 So.2d 749, cert. denied, 528

U.S. 893, 120 S.Ct. 220 (1999). While that may be true, we find no basis upon which

to change this court’s conclusion in connection with our denial of Defendant’s

previous writ application. There is no indication that there was any objection to the

matter proceeding in Division A for nearly two years, and there is no indication that

Defendant was otherwise prejudiced by proceeding in Division A or that the District

Attorney attempted to manipulate the allotment. See State v. Nunez, 15-1473, 15-

1486 (La. 1/27/16), 187 So.3d 964. Accordingly, this assignment of error lacks

merit.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NUMBER 2

Defendant also argues on appeal that the trial court erred when it denied his

motion to continue presented on the last day of trial to obtain additional medical

records pertaining to Defendant’s mental state at the time of the offenses. The

motion was made following the testimony of Defendant’s mother, Jeanette

Mayeaux, indicating that Defendant had intermittently received psychiatric medical

treatment from Longleaf/Crossroads Mental Hospital, including inpatient

hospitalizations, from the time he was a child until shortly before the murders.

According to Defendant, medical records from Longleaf/Crossroads Mental

Hospital “could have aided the experts and trier of fact in determining [Defendant’s]

state of mind at the time of the crime.” Defendant further argues on appeal that

“there was no failure on the part of trial counsel in locating the evidence as he had

just recently located . . . Jeanette Mayeaux[.]”

8

According to Ms. Mayeaux, she first spoke to Defendant’s counsel the day

before her trial testimony. She testified that defense counsel had sent her “a message

on Facebook and told [her] a couple of things,” but she described herself as “not

very Facebook savvy.” She also indicated that defense counsel told her he had “been

looking for [her] for a long time.” Ms. Mayeaux further indicated that, although she

had wanted to talk to Defense counsel earlier, she was under the impression the

Assistant District Attorney would contact her if she was needed, and her sister had

told her not to contact Defendant’s counsel.

Ms. Mayeaux also testified that she first spoke to the State’s counsel “the day

of the grand jury[,]” which was in October 2016. She stated that she had lived at the

same address and had the same phone number since 2006. She further testified that

she “spoke to the victim’s assistance coordinator several times” about the matter.

At trial, Ms. Mayeaux also indicated that Defendant was treated at

Longleaf/Crossroads by Dr. Falarin “approximately at the end of May of 2016 until

mid-June of 2016[,]” and that Dr. Falarin had recommended that Defendant be

interdicted because he was non-compliant with his medications. Attorney Cory Roy,

who also testified at trial, indicated that he had been contacted by a pro bono legal

agency to help Defendant’s grandmother, Patti Mayeaux, obtain Defendant’s

interdiction so she could place him into a facility. However, before the interdiction

could be accomplished, Defendant murdered Patti and his grandfather in September

2016.

Ms. Mayeaux also testified that Defendant had received medical treatment

from Longleaf/Crossroads when he was nine or ten years old because “[h]e was

having some issues at school with the Tourette[’s] Syndrome and he was getting into

9

trouble a lot.” She said he had inpatient treatment there “for behavioral and

psychiatric” issues.

Dr. Simoneaux and Dr. Mayeux also testified at trial. Dr. Simoneaux testified

he did not believe Defendant “has ever suffered from a significant enough mental

illness or disturbance to prevent him from knowing right from wrong.” He did not

recall seeing any medical records indicating Defendant had been diagnosed with a

mental illness, but he thought he “had been told records exist.” Although Dr.

Simoneaux’s report dated February 19, 2017, stated his belief that Defendant “may

have suffered from a significant mental disease or defect,” he believed such a disease

or defect did not prevent Defendant from knowing right from wrong at the time of

the murders. Dr. Simoneaux also found Defendant “understood his actions were

wrong.” Further, Dr. Simoneaux believed Defendant understood the charges against

him and was capable of assisting in his defense. He had “no reason to believe that

[Defendant’s] mental condition would deteriorate under the stress of a trial.” The

report noted “no treatment records were provided” for Dr. Simoneaux to review.

In contrast, Dr. Mayeux’s report dated February 2, 2017, indicated his belief

“that [Defendant] is unable to assist in his defense due to his mental status[.]” Dr.

Mayeux recommended Defendant “be placed in [a] psychiatric unit until he is

deemed mentally stable to stand trial for the death of his grandparents.” Although

Dr. Mayeux did not specifically state whether Defendant knew right from wrong at

the time he committed the murders, he referred to Defendant’s comments that “his

grandfather shot himself after having stabbed his grandmother to death.” Defendant

told Dr. Mayeux he heard that on television, and he did not know why he was in a

closet when law enforcement found him there. He did not know what the charges

were against him. He “denied killing his grandparents, wanting to kill others and

10

denied having been in treatment for psychological problems.” Dr. Mayeux believed

Defendant “has all the characteristics of chronic psychosis” and classified him as a

sociopath and a psychopath. While the February 2, 2017 report was discussed at

trial, the report was not introduced into evidence. However, Dr. Mayeux testified

he believed Defendant was capable of distinguishing between right and wrong at the

time of the offenses and was able to assist in his defense at the time of trial.

Defendant contends he should have been granted a continuance after Ms.

Mayeaux’s testimony to allow him time obtain his records from

Longleaf/Crossroads. He argues those records constitute newly-discovered

evidence he had no way of obtaining because he did not know they existed until his

mother testified about them. He further alleges prejudice because the medical

experts who testified were unable to consider that evidence since his motion to

continue was denied.

“A continuance is the postponement of a scheduled trial or hearing, and shall

not be granted after the trial or hearing has commenced. A recess is a temporary

adjournment of a trial or hearing that occurs after a trial or hearing has commenced.”

La.Code Crim.P. art. 708. Nevertheless, when a motion is “improperly styled as one

of continuance or recess, the court may examine the motion as though it had been

properly denominated. . . . Thus, although the motion may have been improperly

styled as one for ‘continuance,’ it can be reviewed as if it had been properly named

as one for recess.” State v. Ford, 42,928, 42,929, 42,930, pp. 12-13 (La.App. 2 Cir.

2/13/08), 976 So.2d 321, 328, writ denied, 08-605 (La. 10/3/08), 992 So.2d 1010

(citations omitted).

Both the Sixth Amendment of the United States
Constitution and Article I, Section 16 of the Louisiana
Constitution (1974) guarantee a criminal defendant the

11

right to compulsory process and to present a defense. A
defendant’s right to compulsory process is the right to
demand subpoenas for witnesses and the right to have
those subpoenas served. State v. Gordon, 01-734 (La.App.
5 Cir. 11/27/01), 803 So.2d 131, 148, writs denied, 2002-
0362 (La.12/19/02), 833 So.2d 336 and 2002-0209
(La.2/14/03), 836 So.2d 134.

State v. Jackson, 07-84, p. 9 (La.App. 5 Cir. 6/26/07), 963 So.2d 432,
438, writ denied, 07-1666 (La.1/25/08), 973 So.2d 754.

The trial court has great discretion in deciding
whether to grant a continuance, and its ruling will not be
overturned absent an abuse of discretion. State v. Bourque,
622 So.2d 198 (La.1993); State v. Champion, 412 So.2d
1048 (La.1982); La.C.Cr.P. art. 712. Further, we
generally will not reverse a conviction due to an improper
ruling on a continuance unless there is a showing of
specific prejudice to the defendant as a result of the denial
of the continuance. State v. Strickland, 94-0025
(La.11/1/96), 683 So.2d 218; State v. Knighton, 436 So.2d
1141 (La.1983).

State v. Castleberry, 98-1388, p. 11 (La.4/13/99), 758 So.2d 749, 759-
60, cert. denied, 528 U.S. 893, 120 S.Ct. 220, 145 L.Ed.2d 185 (1999).

State v. D.T., 08-814, p. 34 (La.App. 3 Cir. 12/11/08), 998 So.2d 1258, 1281, writ

denied, 09-624 (La. 11/25/09), 22 So.3d 171.

“In order to show prejudicial error sufficient to warrant reversal, the
defendant must show that the testimony the witness would have given
would have been favorable to the defense and would indicate the
possibility of a different result.” State v. Landry, 03-1632, p. 11
(La.App. 4 Cir. 5/19/04), 876 So.2d 146, 153, writ denied, 04-1586
(La.11/15/04), 887 So.2d 474 (citing State v. Stevenson, 02-79 (La.App.
5 Cir. 4/30/02), 817 So.2d 343).

State v. Tolliver, 08-1486, p. 40 (La.App. 3 Cir. 5/13/09), 11 So.3d 584, 607-08, writ

denied, 09-1441 (La. 2/26/10), 28 So.3d 269. “A motion for recess is evaluated by

the same standards as a motion for a continuance.” State v. Williams, 07-1407, p.

30 (La. 10/20/09), 22 So.3d 867, 889, cert. denied, 560 U.S. 905, 130 S.Ct. 3278

(2010).

12

The State argues a “continuance” was improper because trial had already

begun and what Defendant sought was more than a temporary recess. However,

whether the request was styled as a motion for a continuance or a motion for recess,

is of no moment for purposes of our analysis.

In Tolliver, 11 So.3d 584, the defendant requested a continuance a week into

the trial because the initial investigator in the case and an FBI profiler were

unavailable to testify. Both witnesses “had already testified extensively . . . and had

been thoroughly cross-examined by the defense.” Id. at 600.

On appeal, this court found the record failed to show defense counsel’s due

diligence in securing the witnesses’ presence. Further, the record contained nothing

to show what the witnesses’ testimony would have been. Thus, the record failed to

show the defendant was prejudiced by the denial of the motions for continuance

based on the unavailability of the witnesses. This court commented, “because there

is no evidence in the record that would lead this court to conclude the defendant was

prejudiced by the denials of defense counsel’s motions for continuance and recesses

based on the unavailability of defense witnesses, there was no reversible error.”

Tolliver, 11 So.3d at 608.

Here, we likewise find that the record shows no prejudice to Defendant by the

denial of the motion for a continuance. Defendant was treated at

Longleaf/Crossroads just a few months prior to the murders, but he now claims he

knew nothing of that treatment until his mother testified. The State had located Ms.

Mayeaux in October of 2016, when the grand jury met. She had lived at the same

address with the same phone number for a long time. In contrast, defense counsel

found her on Facebook only immediately prior to the trial. Counsel placed no

13

evidence into the record to detail what efforts he had made to locate Ms. Mayeaux.

He stated merely that he had been looking for her a long time.

Once the evidence of Defendant’s treatment at Longleaf/Crossroads came to

light, Defendant could have called Drs. Simoneaux and Mayeux back to the witness

stand to ask them if that information would impact their opinions. Instead, the record

shows nothing to suggest Defendant made any effort to determine how important

those records could be if they in fact supported Ms. Mayeaux’s testimony.

Defendant’s argument requires this court to assume facts and evidence that are not

in the record and that Defendant has made no effort to place in the record. We further

find that Defendant has not shown any prejudice resulting from the trial court’s

denial of his motion to continue the trial based on Ms. Mayeaux’s testimony.

Therefore, we find no merit to this assignment of error.

DECREE

For the reasons set forth above, Defendant’s convictions and sentences are

affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

14