Quentin Woods VS James LeBlanc, Secretary of the Department of Public Safety & Corrections
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT NU 2012 GA 1720 QUENTIN WOODS VERSUS JAMES LEBLANC SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY Judgment Rendered CORRECTIONS APR 2 6 2 3 On Appeal from the 19 Judicial District Court In and for the Parish of East Baton Rouge G State of Louisiana Trial Court No 610 022 The Honorable R Michael Caldwell Judge Presiding Quentin Woods Jackson Louisiana Appellant Plaintiff In Proper Person William Kline Attorney for Defendant Appellee Department of Public Safety Corrections Baton Rouge Louisiana BEFORE GUIDRY CRAIN AND THERIOT JJ CRAIN J Quentin Woods an inmate in the custody of the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections appeals a screening judgment dismissing his petition with prejudice far failure to state a cause of action For the following reasons we affirm Based upon the allegations ofthe petition and attachments thereto Woods is serving a sentence as a habitual offender based upon a guilty plea to a felony drug offense He was sentenced as a habitual offender under Louisiana Revised Statute 1 529 15 due to a previous guilty plea to another felony drug offense Woods alleges that he has been improperly denied diminution of sentence credit or good time as authorized by Louisiana Revised Statute 5713 15 Woods does not dispute that Section 571 prohibits diminution of a sentence if an inmate was 3C convicted of certain enumerated crimes including a felony drug offense and is sentenced as an habitual offender however he argues that he pled guilty to these offenses as opposed to being convicted of them Therefore according to Woods the statutory disqualification does not apply to him Woods appealed the denial of his claim to the district court where the commissioner rendered a report finding that Vb petition did not state a cause oods of action under Section 571 because he was sentenced as a habitual offender 3C and his prior guilty pleas resulted in convictions of one or more of the crimes enumerated in Section 5713C The commissioner recommended that Woods petition be dismissed on that basis and in accordance with that recommendation 1 We apply the version of Louisiana Revised Statute 15 in effect prior to its amendment 5713C by 2011 La Acts No 186 Section 5 of that Act provides that the amendment applies only to those persons sentenced on or after August 15 2011 Although the date of Woods sentencing is not reflected in the record this administrative proceeding was instituted on September 1 2011 just sixteen days after the effective date of the new Act It is unlikely that zhe defendant was sentenced during that sixteen day pexiod To the extent amended Section 5713C may apply however we note that Woods habitua offender status alone would be sufficient to disqualify him for diminution of sentence credit under the amended statute 2 the district court entered a judgment dismissing Woods petition with prejudice on May 16 2012 After a review of the record and applicable law we agree with the commissioner and the district court As the commissioner explained a guilty plea results in a final conviction State v Bosworth 451 So 1070 1074 La 2d 1984 A guilty plea is a conviction and therefore is to be afforded a great measure of finality State v Banks 97 La App 1 Cir 9721 So 2d 24 26 writ 2257 98 25 denied 98 La 4 742 So 2d 877 Based upon his prior convictions 3210 99 23 and habitual offender status Woods does not qualify for diminution of sentence under Section 5713C Woods cites Spellman v Stalder 98 La App 1 Cir 4 740 0725 99 1 Sa2d 671 674 writ granted and remanded on other grounds 99 La 1801 99 8 10 750 So 172 as support for his argument that the prior guilty pleas do 2d not meet the requirement of a conviction under Section 5713C However the court in Spellman did not hold that a guilry plea is not tantamount to a conviction Instead the court held that the record did not contain evidence of a particular conviction relied upon by the commissioner More on point is Jones v LeBlanc 2371 11 La App 1 Cir 9 unpublished opinion wherein this court 12 21 specifically considered and rejected the subject argument holding that the sassertion that a guilty plea is not a conviction for purposes ofLa R S petitioner Chas no merit 5713 15 For these reasons we affirm the judgment of the trial court recognizing and granting an exception of no cause of action and dismissing Woods petition with prejudice All costs associated with this appeal are assessed to Woods We issue this memorandum opinion in accordance with Uniform Rules of Appeal Courts Rule 2 1B 16 AFFIRMED 3
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.
