Harold J. Augustine, Jr. VS Warden Lynn Cooper, Deputy Warden Gremillion, Mary M. Pellegrin, Nikki Chenevert, Richard Stalder and Linda Ramsey
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT NUMBER 2007 CA 0626 HAROLD J AUGUSTINE JR VERSUS Judgment Rendered December Appealed 21 2007 from the Nineteenth Judicial District Court In and for the Parish of East Baton Rouge Louisiana Trial Court Number 533 889 Honorable William A Morvant Harold J Augustine Cottonport LA Jr In Judge Proper Plaintiff Person Appellant L Bruce Dodd Attorney for Baton Defendants Rouge LA BEFORE Appellees Warden Lynn Cooper et al CARTER C J PETTIGREW AND WELCH JJ WELCH J The of the Louisiana confined the Harold J plaintiff appellant to A of Public Department voyelles follow we dismiss the the automobile with 214 976 On sentencing an court appeal plaintiff of stolen labor in the court convicted 1997 by the district sentenced the of the number 181 641 sentence was supervision a in St jury plaintiff judge to plaintiff to and 214 976 1997 the in 8t on suspended of the that and the was Parish the at hard plaintiff The sentencing was adjudicated sentence of plaintiff revoked court ordered the a third 1 six years at in St felony offender with The sentencing hard labor in the court custody Tammany Parish under docket sentenced to three years at hard labor That placed on three years of probation under the was was However custody of the concurrently run November 6 1989 he Department docket number 181 641 reasons imprisomnent two years at hard labor in the plaintiff pled guilty to simple burglary and Tammany six years of possession of stolen propeliy conviction the For Department for his conviction in docket number previously imposed Previously AVC 2005 193 altered Vehicle Identification Number under docket number to vacated the appeals an was sentences in 214 975 the He moot as 214 976 to Louisiana property under docket number 214 975 and possession of June 9 11 Department dismissing his petition for judicial review of Depmiment in docket number regard Cottonport the custody of 214 975 and sentenced the July inmate in the an Tammany Parish custody On Jr is and Corrections remedy procedure ARP number In 1997 possession Safety Correctional Center in judgment of the district administrative Augustine September 4 1991 the plaintiff s probation in plaintiff also pled guilty to carnal knowledge of a docket number 192 039 and on September 4 1991 the on The juvenile in St Tammany Parish under plaintiff was sentenced to three years at hard labor with said sentence to run concunent with the sentence he was serving in docket number 181 641 The plaintiff filed supervisory writ with this court seeking review of various rulings of the trial court in those applications 7 proceedings in State v Augustine 2004 KW 2676 La App 1st Cir 2 05 unpublished writ action State v Augustine 2005 KW 2153 La App 1st Cir 12 2 05 unpublished writ action and State v Augustine 2005 KW 2704 La App 1st Cir 3 27 06 unpublished writ action 2 of the Department and sentenced the plaintiff to habitual offender imposed a served sentence of ten years but the sentence at adjudication proceedings hard labor habitual offender court sentencing However The probation indicate whether the not the minutes of the transcript of the sentencing reflects that the without benefit of did 2 court or suspension sentence sentencing was comi to between the minutes and the judicial review and custody of the This Department discrepancy transcript from the habitual offender adjudication it has also been an applications filed by the plaintiff with this him sought labor to Parish plaintiffs prison to premised on State when there is a v discrepancy sentenced to death or eight supervisory Department to was from sentence be returned sentence 441 So 2d 732 Lynch least at confinement 734 The La provides hard labor at ten years at hard to the St The Tammany plaintiff s argument 1983 which that are plaintiff filed supervisory writ applications was provides that transcript only individuals actually be committed to Depmiment the plaintiff contended that because the transcript does 2 writ illegally holding between the minutes and the transcript the 15 824 C for 3 sought the remainder of his And since La R S prevails court Department change his without hard labor and serve issue in ARP he claimed that the to have the ten years be from the proceedings fonns the basis of the plaintiff s claims in the present petition In the of adjudication proceedings provide that the plaintiff was sentenced hard labor in the to ten years at ten years with this cOUli seeking not to the reflect that review of various with regard to the habitual offender proceedings in State v Augustine 2005 KW 0448 La App 1st Cir 4 18 05 unpublished writ action State v Augustine 2005 KW 0617 La App 1st Cir 4 18 05 UllPublished writ action and State v Augustine 2005 KW 1439 La mlings App 3 1 st Cir 10 6 05 action action action action action action writ action 1st Cir State v La 1st Cir State v La 1st Cir State v Augustine 2005 KW 2155 La 1st Cir State v Augustine 2005 KW 2655 La 1st Cir State v Augustine 2005 KW 2722 La App 1st Cir State v Augustine 2006 KW 1027 La App 1st Cir and State v Augustine 2006 KW 2000 La App 1st Cir See State action unpublished v Augustine 2004 KW 1914 Augustine 2005 KW 0918 Augustine 2005 KW 1632 action 3 La App App App App App 12 104 10 6 05 9 13 05 10 12 05 4 10 06 writ unpublished unpublished unpublished unpublished unpublished writ writ writ writ 10 4 06 unpublished writ 24 7 06 unpublished unpublished writ 14 11 06 writ he was sentenced hard labor to he should be serving his in the 8t sentence Tammany Parish prison instead of in the custody of the Department The and denied the Department reviewed while the minutes sentenced the Department and benefit of the probation was a a 17 2006 of sentence specified court to be served with was imprisonment subjects See La that because see a C Cr P s or felony is to be sentenced to the 890 B defined as custody believed that it would be offender sentence to classification authorized decision Therefore to to rely failure to transcript not to say report fmding that without hard labor of the illogical required assume was not plaintiff s punishable be in and to Lastly are at hard presumed the commissioner sentencing same sentencing arbitrary person Court a third more severe court or who habitual habitual Department and therefore its manifestly Department suit be dismissed without 4 otherwise warranted without habitual offender the minutes of the was any the commissioner reasoned that the adjudicating that the minutes cases unless labor to Department to inadvertent was an except in misdemeanor are it specify whether the plaintiff s the commissioner recommended that the affinned and that the a requirement of hard labor from the on without would transcript Thus the commissioner concluded that the rely on he ten years 2005 Additionally fJelons intend upon delete the serve any offense that may be 6 years at hard labor adjudication would hard labor with the sic order in the defendant a art La C Cr P art 933 3 originally felt t the commissioner issued The commissioner reasoned that error was expressed no to that noting Dissatisfied with the decision of the Department the probable that the trial ten year sentence labor was sentence petition for judicial review on June 29 On October seems more there sentence parish plaintiff filed as of suspension or ARP claim ten years at serve transcript sentenced the plaintiff override the minutes this to plaintiff plaintiff s prejudice s erroneous decision be After 2006 the district without prejudice However ARP in this the The prior alleging of the custody plaintiff s motion for application following November 9 recommendation s rendered suit plaintiff appealed instituting these proceedings to same denied a ie because he judicial review of the court sentencing that he was motion to a in docket number being illegally detained in was not sentenced to by the sentencing supervisory writs for writ of habeas corpus and with the complaints department was on Department s decision and dismissed the plaintiff s speak the truth the proceedings the commissioner regard the plaintiff filed make the records the adopted court judgment affirming 214 975 the entire record of the considering hard labor and the court plaintiff The filed an This court granted the writ in part and issued the order WRIT GRANTED IN PART sentencing court of 11 is ordered to review the transcript The and the minute 1997 and to correct the minutes and commitment to July accurately reflect entry WRIT DENIED IN PART what transpired during the habitual offender adjudication accurately reflect whether plaintiff s sentence is to be served with or without hard labor All other claims are hereby and to denied State v Augustine 2005 KW 0918 La App 1st Cir 10 6 05 unpublished writ action Thereafter pursuant to this on November 30 2005 the court s directive The transcript from the sentencing July sentence was time that the ordered to be served with sentence or 11 sentencing 1997 is silent be served with hard labor court court noted as without hard labor to conducted that the From this ruling by the sentencing supervisory writ sentence court the is t July he plaintiffs at that sentencing 11 court 1997 be served with hard labor plaintiff filed both applications with this 5 to hearing ordered court Therefore the a although whether the that the minute entry and the commitment order of accurately reflect that the plaintiffs counseled sentencing court Both writ pro se and applications were denied See State unpublished 2005 KW 2655 Augustine writ action and State Cir 4 10 06 Augustine v 2005 KW 2722 court s actions and 2005 KW 2655 Parish in the prison is v moot A can give moot court no Hall 97 2525 is case be made effective and 1 st Cir 6 25 04 p 4 previous order and now not to would afford no appellate moot and All give opinion Augustine L L C on this moot In this case Companies Lending 98 722 So 2d 48 questions foregoing are or to abstract as this be served moot La discrepancy to Accordingly that court at by this we s hard court pretermit See United 97 2525 at p 5 722 So 2d at 51 reasons accordingly appeal is 50 judgments further action by the plaintiffs appeal his decree that or because the sentence find Tammany Allured 2003 1878 p 5 v this we conclude that the issues appeal Courts of Appeal Rule 2 16 2 A costs of judgment we serving in the St courts is to render practical relief for the plaintiff F or the above and a or United custody of the Department Companies Lending Corporation Unifonn Rules hard labor be transcript has been corrected pursuant consideration of the issues raised are plaintiff should that seeks 1173 order compliance with this provides that the plaintiff s labor and therefore in the appeal App 1st La correction of the minutes and App 1st Cir 116 La 885 So 2d 1170 between the minutes and the on 06 2005 KW 0918 Augustine v relief propositions Orange Grove Properties App s at one practical lt is well settled that the function of the can State custody of the Department when rendered Corporation III the issue of whether the appeal concerning sentence 10 App 1st Cir 4 2005 KW 2722 ordering the transcript and given the sentencing this La unpublished writ action Considering this the v assessed Ir APPEAL DISMISSED AS MOOT 6 to presented is dismissed in accordance with 3 the plaintiff appellant Harold J
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
