Thomas Normand VS Louisiana Risk Review Panel, Louisiana Department of Public Safety & Corrections
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT 2010 CA 0473 THOMAS NORMAND VERSUS LOUISIANA RISK REVIEW PANEL LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY K r CORRECTIONS Judgment Rendered SEP 10 2010 On Appeal from the Nineteenth Judicial District Court In and for the Parish of East Baton Rouge State of Louisiana Docket No 577 687 Honorable Trudy M White Judge Presiding Thomas Normand PlaintiffAppellant Kinder Louisiana In Proper Person William Kline Counsel for Defendant Appellee Louisiana Department of Baton Rouge Louisiana Corrections BEFORE WHIPPLE MCDONALD AND McCLENDON 73 MCCLENDON J The petitioner in this case Thomas Normand appeals a judgment of the Nineteenth Judicial District Court dismissing his petition for mandamus andor injunction with prejudice for failure to state a cause of action For the following reasons we affirm FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY On November 19 1997 Normand was convicted of a violation of LSAR S a 1 F 967 40 for possessing 28 grams or more of cocaine Normand was adjudicated as a second offender under the provisions of the Habitual Offender Law and sentenced to thirty years at hard labor one See LSAR 15 S 529 1 His predicate conviction was for the crime of aggravated battery in 1994 In 2001 the Legislature pursuant to 2001 La Acts 403 effective June 15 2001 provided more lenient penalty provisions for certain enumerated crimes including LSAR 40 See LSAR 15 Section 2 of the Act also S 967 1 F S 308 created the Louisiana Risk Review Panel the Panel whose statutory duty is to evaluate the risk of danger to society that each person convicted of a non violent crime may present if released from confinement in a prison facility LSAR S G 22 574 15 Although LSAR 15 applied prospectively when it was S 574 22 adopted the Legislature later declared that the statute was to be applied retroactively and allowed persons who committed crimes who were convicted or who were sentenced under the strider provisions prior to June 15 2001 to apply to the Panel for review under the more lenient penalty provisions provided that such application ameliorates the person circumstances s B 308 15 as added by 2006 La Ads 45 See LSAR S 1 effective May 16 2006 On December 8 2006 Normand submitted a risk review application to the Panel noting that since his conviction the penalty provision under LSAR S 1 F 967 40 had become more lenient On November 6 2008 the application was returned without action because Normand had been onvided c of a crime of violence as defined or enumerated in former La R 14 now S 2 13 8 2 14 2 On January 21 2009 Normand sought administrative review through the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections the Department On March 23 2009 Normand request was rejected by the Department which s indicated that the risk review matter is not appealable through this process On April 23 2009 Normand filed a Petition for Writ of Mandamus andor Injunction in the 19 Judicial District Court praying that the court order the Department to evaluate whether Normand is entitled to risk review relief and to schedule him a risk review hearing Commissioner John Smart Jr found that there was no authority for the court to review a recommendation of the Panel and that mandamus relief was not available to compel a response As such the Commissioner recommended that the court on its own motion raise and grant an exception of no cause of action In accord with the Commissioner recommendation the district court s granted an exception of no cause of action and dismissed Normand suit In so s doing the district court found that although LSAR 15 required the S 574 22 panel to evaluate certain offenders applications the statute excluded Normand from seeking review because he had previously been convicted of a violent crime Normand has appealed asserting that the district erred in denying him mandamus relief DISCUSSION We note that certain individuals are not eligible to seek review from the Panel Louisiana Revised Statutes 15 as rewritten by 2009 La Acts G 22 574 103 1 provides in pertinent part Specifically Normand has assigned the following errors for review 1 The District Court erred in denying Plaintiff mandamus relief on the basis of no cause of action by finding and applying sua sponte the provisions of La R 15r574 to disqualify Plaintiff 5 22 4 G s application for risk review where the Panel had albeit in error applied La R 15r574 in violation of La Const 1974 Art II S 22 1XJ G 2 The District Court conclusion that La R 15r574 includes s S 22 4 G any crime of violence runs afoul of the legislative intent and amounts 3 4 to judicial legislation in violation of La Const 1974 Art H The District Court erred in interpreting that the only avenue for Plaintiff to seek benefit of the ameliorative sentencing changes enumerated in S 308 R 15 was to apply to the Risk Review Panel The cumulative rationale supporting dismissing of Plaintiff suit operates s as a denial of equal protection and due process of law 3 The panel shall evaluate the risk of danger to society which each person who has been convicted of a crime and who is confined in a prison facility of any kind may present if released from confinement However the following persons shall not be eligible for review by the Risk Review Panel 4 A person sentenced as a habitual offender under R 15 S 529 1 where one or more of the crimes for which the person was convicted and sentenced under R 15 is a crime of violence S 529 1 defined or enumerated in R 14 Emphasis added S 2 6 Although the statute has been rewritten since the Panel considered Normand s application the substance of the provision at issue has remained the same 2 Aggravated battery is enumerated as a crime of violence under LSAR S 5 6 2 14 The Panel rejected s Normand application because he had onvicted c of a crime of violence as enumerated in LSAR 14 S 2 6 LSAR 15 S 574 4 G 22 been See Normand asserts that the Panel was required to consider his application rather than reject it because the exclusion found in 4 G only refers to crimes that are instant convictions and does not specifically address any past convictions As such Normand concludes that the district court should have issued a writ of mandamus to require the Panel to review the merits of his application A plain reading of LSAR 15 indicates that an application S 574 4 G 22 filed by a habitual offender who has been convicted and sentenced for a crime of violence cannot be considered by the Panel The exception does not limit its application to the instant or current conviction but rather applies it to all crimes that form the basis for the sentence under LSAR 15 S 529 1 Moreover such interpretation is in accord with the Legislature intent which seeks to have s Z At the time the Panel reviewed Normand application LSAR 15 provided in s S 754 G 22 pertinent part The panel shall have the duty to evaluate the risk of danger to society which each person who has been convicted of a crime not defined or enumerated as a crime of violence in R 14 and who is confined in a prison facility of any S 2 6 kind may present if released from confinement However the panel shall not evaluate the risk of danger to society presented by 3 A person sentenced as a habitual offender under R 15 where one or S 529 1 more of the crimes for which the person was convicted and sentenced under R S 1 529 15 is a crime of violence defined or enumerated in R 14 S 2 6 12 these retroactive ameliorative penalty provisions applied to inmates with non violent criminal histories Further in the instant case the Panel reviewed and subsequently rejected s Normand application on the basis of LSAR 15 Accordingly the S 574 G 22 Panel performed the only duty it was required to perform See Weaver v LeBlanc 090224 p La 1 Cir 9 22 So 1014 1017 3 App 09 14 3d Moreover Normand has not shown that the Department refused to perform a duty that was required by law Therefore the courts have no legal authority to compel the Panel or Department to perform any further action For the foregoing reasons we affirm the judgment of the district court dismissing Normand petition s Costs of this appeal are assessed to Thomas Normand AFFIRMED 3 In Weaver an inmate filed a petition in the district court seeking a writ of mandamus after a Risk Review Panel denied the inmate application based on extensive criminal history 090244 s at p 4 22 So at 1017 The district court dismissed the inmate action for failure to state a 3d s cause of action On appeal this court noted that while it was unclear whether the inmate was seeking a hearing or an order requiring the Panel to make a recommendation of leniency to the Pardons or Parole Board both of those acts involve discretionary authority of the Panel 09 0244 at p 5 22 So at 1017 This court noted that a writ of mandamus can only issue when a 3d public official refuses to perform a duty the law clearly states he must perform Id Because the Panel had reviewed the inmate application which is the only duty a Panel is required to s perform there was no legal authority for the court to compel any action against the Panel Id As such this court affirmed the district court judgment dismissing the inmate petition s s E
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.
