State Of Louisiana VS Richard A. Sharp, III
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA 2013 NO KW 1249 VERSUS RICHARD A Richard A In Re 22nd No appears to III applying District Court for supervisory writs Parish of St Tammany 518101 FOR REQUEST Sharp Judicial WHIPPLE BEFORE 0CT 1 0 2013 III SHARP J C PETTIGREW AND WELCH STAY WRIT DENIED seek review of NOT JJ CONSIDERED the ruling on June 12 Relator 2013 denying Relator did not comply with the reurged affidavit requirement of Uniform Rules of Louisiana Courts of 5 Appeal Ru1e 4 A and the request for a stay did not comply The with the of Rules 4 and 12 C 5 4 requirements his statement of of status the the clude ir a recuse case is not with Ru1e copy of concise required as case failed to comply to to motion all and Rule by 8 C 5 4 9 pertinent does not include and pleadings 10 by and the the Relator 3 C 5 4 failing 1 bi of information a copy of the opposition or a statement that no were and a documents filed copy of the opposing written court minutes The font used in the writ application pertinent does not comply with the requirements of Ru1es 2 and 4 12 8 Additionally the pages are not numbered as required by Rule B 5 4 of Supplementation for application rehearing this will writ not be application considered or and See an Uniform 9 4 In the 7 18 2 Appeal event relator elects to file a new application with this Court the application shall be filed on or before October 24 2013 Rules of Louisiana Courts of Rules VGW JEW Pettigrew concur in concurs COURT and denial deny OF APPEAL PUTY FOR CLERK THE of in the FIRST the part and dissents in part I stay and dissent in that I would s motion Relator to application recuse did not comply with the writing and content requirements of La Code Crim P art 674 Moreover relator arguments at s the hearing did not provide support for the trial court to reconsider the earlier rulings on the motions to recuse consider the J writ CIRCUIT OF COURT COURT
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.
