David D. Clifford a/k/a Michael J. Coleman VS Louisiana Department of Public Safety & Corrections and Richard Stalder
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT o v 2008 CA 1290 DAVID D I tI CLIFFORD A KIA MICHAEL J COLEMAN VERSUS LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONS 1 Judgment Rendered On December 23 2008 Appeal from the Nineteenth Judicial District Court In and For the Parish of East Baton Rouge State of Louisiana Docket No 550 129 Honorable Curtis A David Plaintiff D Clifford Angola Calloway Judge Presiding In Louisiana Appellant Proper Person Counsel for Defendants Rutledge Baton Rouge Louisiana Debra A Louisiana Appellees Department of Public Safety and Corrections and Richard L Stalder BEFORE PARRO McCLENDON AND WELCH JJ McCLENDON J Plaintiff David Clifford D good time credits denial of his request for thorough review of the record Plaintiff the district court appeals sought judicial for time judgment affirming the s After custody in federal spent a affirm we review of the denial of his request for additional credits by the defendants Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections and Richard L Stalder review the commissioner an recommending appeaL After department for 19th the affirmance of the March On 20 the issues raised in considering Judicial District a report a dismissal of the a judgment affirming the Plaintiff to the district court department s decision and dismissing the plaintiff s appeal appealed issued Court department s decision and the district court signed 2008 plaintiff s petition for to this court Plaintiff asserts that the criminal court in Orleans Parish ordered that his state sentence was to be served sentence concurrently with any other including sentence court erred in Therefore the department and the district a federal to award a failing credit for his concurrent state and federal sentences Based on the record before we find analysis and conclusion of agree with the The court below us here is key concept LSA C Cr P concurrently with another no clear error in the factual the commissioner and the of service or judgment of the actually serving a sentence As stated in the commissioner s 883 1A art findings and report At the time not then plaintiff serving any was The record shows that his commence to run again until his release from custody for good time parole concurrently with sentence that on 1 credit Long after filing JDc them a a September shall petition the federal sentence be given for judicial on the Likewise in his brief to this court the plaintiff allegations new as was Louisiana plaintiffs armed robbery then serving any other Specifically raised Art 883 1 states or issues 2 service new issues in a brief of directed to the 19th were not before the court and did not rule plaintiff assigned administrative remedy requests to the department 1994 state sentence for all review The district court found that the new also decline to address any if he 27 relied upon by plaintiff specify that a state sentence be federal sentence have been served including was government because he had Code Criminal Procedure Article 883 1 does in fact state that a state court may sentence would charges he and sentence federal sentence did not served the State on sentence for the federal escaped from federal custody State sentenced error to issues that to the district court in his were petition on not raised in his for review We concurrent terms of imprisonment served in federal custody footnotes omitted After applying the cited then found that custody and on the date of was not serving federal custody and thus sentenced on the state subsequent good time a not law to the undisputed essential facts 2 the commissioner sentencing in state court the plaintiff was federal sentence rather he was on was arrested and Similarly the commissioner found that due release from his state sentence the federal escape status from serving any other sentence when he charges not in plaintiff was not to his serving a concurrent state sentence at the time his federal sentence resumed For these in reasons we affirm the judgment by compliance with URCA Rule 2 16 1B appellant David this memorandum The costs opinion issued assessed to the are plaintiff D Clifford AFFIRMED 2 On appeal plaintiff filed in this court a SUBPOENA DUCES requesting supplementation Parish Court note that such a motion is more Initially deny request filed in this court on by plaintiff from the transcript is the we However we TECUM which of the record with a Parish Civil District Court directed to the Orleans transcript from the Orleans properly directed to the district court and also find that even correct the result would be the 3 was if same we assume the language we relied
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.
