Edmund M. Scheidel VS James LeBlanc, Secretary, Department of Corrections
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION ST TE OF LOUISI NA COURT OF A.PP AL FI ZSi C1IZt UTT NQ. 2013 CA. 06a5 EDMUND M. SCHEIDEL VERSUS JAMES LEBLANC, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS JudgmentRendered: DEC 2 7 261 On Appeal from the 19th Judicial District Court, In and far the Parish of East Baton Rouge, State of Louisi na Trial Court No. 5: 1, 568 The Honorable Wilson Fields, Judge Presiding Edmund M. Scheidel Plaintiff/Appellant, Winnfield, Louisiana In Proper Person William Kline Attorney for Defendant/Appellee, Baton Rouge, Louisiana Louisiana Department of Corrections BEFORE: WI II'PLE, C. J., WELCH, AND CRAIN, JJ. CRAIN, J. Edmund M. Scheidel appeals the judgment of the district court dismissing his petition for judicial review in which he requested issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. Scheidel was convicted of forcibie rape, a violation of Louisiana Revised Statute 14:42. 1, and was sentenced to thirty years imprisonment at hard labor. In his petition, he alleged that he was charged by bill of information, rather than indictment, and therefore the Sheriff of the parish in which he was convicted did not tender an indictment to the Department of Public Safety and Corrections as required by Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure article 892, making the Department' s custody of him illegal. The district court dismissed Scheidel' s suit with prejudice, and without service, for reasons set forth in the written recommendation of the court' s commissioner, which included failure to state a cause of action far release or damages and for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The commissioner noted that numerous complaints had been filed by inmates claiming that because they were charged by bill of information, the Sheriffs in the parishes of their convictions failed to tender to the Department a grand jury indictment as required by Article 892, meaning that the Department' s current custody was illegal. The issue presented here was recently considered by this court in Lewis v. Secretary, Louisiana State Dept. of Public Safety and Cor^ections, 12- 1890, 2013WL2488464 (La. App. 1 Cir. 6/ 7/ 13) ( unpublished), wherein this court found: Article 892 requires that the sheriff transmit certain documents to the Department upon delivery of a prisoner, including a " copy of the indictment under which the defendant was convicted." Appellant alleged that his commitment papers were deficient because they included only a bill of information, rather than an indictment. This argument lacks merit because, under [ Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure article] 934( 6), the term " indictment" by definition includes a bill of information, unless there is a clear intent to restrict the term to the finding of a grand jury, which is clearly not the case in Article 892. Moreover, even if proper documentation had not been prepared and delivered to the Department in accordance with Article 892, such failure would not affect the validity of appellant' s convictions or sentences, which constitute the, legal authority for the Department' s D); Roland v. Stalder, 10- 0957, p. 3 custody. See La. C. Cr.P. art. 892( La. App. lst Cir3/ 25/ 11) ( unpublished). . . Appellant failed to . establish his claim that he has never been accepted into the Department' s custody. For the same reasons, we find no merit LeBlanc, 13- 0324, 2013WL5915763 ( La. to Scheidel' App. s claims. 1 Cir. 11/ 1/ 13) ( Cf. Murphy v. unpublished). We additionally find no error in the procedure employed by the district court. See Murphy, 2013WL5915763; Lewis, 2013WL2488464. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court that dismissed Scheidel' s demands at his cost. The district court additionally assessed Scheidel with a strike pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act. See La. R.S. 15: 1187. However, the assessment of a strike is a sanction applicable only in suits in which an inmate challenges prison conditions or officials' actions affecting the lives of those confined in prison. Manuel v. Stalder, 04- 1920 ( La. App. 1 Cir. 12/ 22/ OS), 928 50. 2d 24, 27- 28; Frederick v. Ieyoub, 99- 0616 ( La. App. 1 Cir. 5/ 12/ 00), 762 So. 2d 144, 150, writ denied, 00- 1811 ( La. 4/ 12/ O1), 789 So. 2d 581. Since Scheidel' s suit does not fall into that category, the district court erred in assessing a strike against him. For the faregoing reasons, the July 24, 2012 judgnent of the district court dismissing Scheidel' s petition far judicial review is affirmed That portion of the district court' s memorandum judgment assessing opinion Appeal Rule 2- 16. 1B. is issued in a strike against compliance with Scheidel is reversed. This Uniform Rules Courts of All costs of this appeal are assessed to Edmund M. Scheidel. AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART.
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.
