Earl Weaver VS James Leblanc, Secretary, Department of Corrections and Risk Review Panel, State of Louisiana
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT 2009 CA 0244 A EARL WEAVER VERSUS JAMES LEBLANC SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION RISK REVIEW PANEL STATE OF LOUISIANA G Judgment Rendered September 14 2009 APPEALED FROM THE NINETEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR THE PARISH OF EAST BATON ROUGE STATE OF LOUISIANA DOCKET NUMBER 565 104 THE HONORABLE JANICE CLARK JUDGE Earl Weaver Angola In Proper Person Plaintiff Appellant Louisiana Terri L Cannon Baton Rouge Louisiana BEFORE Attorney for Defendant Appellee Louisiana Department Of Public Safety Corrections P ARRO KUHN AND McDONALD JJ McDONALD J The petitioner ill this Earl Weaver case prejudice for failure its own to state For the motion complaint is s Louisiana Risk Review Panel authorized 1 was The noticed by that he has been denied by La legislature hereby a 15 308 which RS declares that the provisions The legislature hereby further declares that Act No 45 of the 2002 First Extraordinary Session of the Legislature revised errors in penalty provisions for certain which amended were Act by No 403 of the Regular Session of the Legislature and that these revisions were to be applied retroactively to June 15 2001 and applied to any crime committed subject to such revised penalties on and 2001 after such date In the interest of fairness of sentencing the legislature hereby further declares that the more lenient penalty provisions provided for in Act No 403 of the 2001 Regular Session of the Legislature and Act No 45 of the 2002 First Extraordinary Session of the Legislature shall apply to the class of persons 8 committed crimes who sentenced according l4 56 2 D 91 7 C 1304 8 R S 3 R S RS 40 966 8 and 981 1 4 a 981 2 B that 1 69 8 106 G 1 122 D 1 529 A 15 D C l D and b and and C such 2 ii E F 2 Art 893 A application prior RS 82 D and 1303 8 and and 375 C 3 2 981 and Code of June ameliorates 1 979 A and E to 2 352 2 967 B G and 1 were 106 1 C 309 C and and 981 3 A 3 ii c E who 1 70 8 and l F I 2 and and or provisions and a 123 C l b 27 262 C Criminal Procedure provided following C 3 92 C 1 119 D convicted were the and 92 2 8 402 1 8 who to 1 62 8 119 D the court provides Regular Session of the Legislature for certain provided for more lenient penalty provisions enumerated crimes and that these penalty provisions were to be applied prospectively statutes with on hearing by the of Act No 403 of the 2001 2 of the for mandamus petition of action which a cause judgment a following reasons the judgment is affirmed The basis of Weaver A his dismissing Nineteenth Judicial District Court appeals the 15 2001 person s circumstances Such persons shall be entitled to apply Louisiana Risk Review Panel pursuant to R S 15 574 22 C 2 to the Weaver claims that he is in the class of persons that the law enacted to imprisonment Controlled We protect as offender habitual a that recognize Dangerous Substances Law Weaver for and that the and apply However neither the vehicle he chose 15 574 22 the relief he are penalty for the legally requests Before going into life crime is which La R S intended were for mandamus petition order that the Risk Review Panel review his an available to Louisiana Risk Review Panel 15 308 to violation of the Louisiana a lenient As such he is in the class of persons now more sentenced was was reasons for this conclusion to nor case some history of the Risk Review Panel system and the changes in the sentencing law are adopt necessary to understand the nature of this mandamus the from the Commissioner following s request We report adopted by the district court in this matter In 2001 the Louisiana Legislature passed a single piece of legislation establishing the Risk Review Panel and also reducing numerous previously mandated criminal sentences This was accomplished by Act 403 which became effective on June 15 2001 Act 403 amended the penalty provisions of numerous criminal statutes including the penalty provisions of R S l 529 the 15 fourth habitual felony offenders such wherein life sentences were Act also enacted La Rev Review Panel and listed risk of society offender as statute for third the Petitioner in this mandated At the same its primary case time that Stat 15 574 22 which created as and a Risk evaluate the purpose to certain convicted individuals would pose to if released from confinement and in its discretion make danger recommendations The Panel who have not to duty s is limited in been convicted determines that a 8 the Parole and Pardon Boards of a person will not part to evaluating violent crime present a 9 risk of If inmates a Panel danger to society if released from confinement the Panel may make a non binding recommendation that the person be considered for clemency by the Board of Pardons or considered for parole by the Board of Parole 8 9 In Section 6 ofthe Act it See La Rev Stat 15 inmates with a to provisions shall only have prospective effect prohibits the Risk Review Panel s ability to review the Petitioner herein does not appear to have any prohibiting only for clarity and completeness originally specified G that the While R S 15 574 22 certain criminal histories crimes and thus I refer 10 22 574 10 his restriction See L a Rev Stat 15 574 22 I 3 This Court has no decisions of the Parole Board in Subsequently the pre release the Pardon Board judicial oversight 15 308 which made the over 11 or the 2006 previous RS legislature enacted sentence reductions in Acts respectively retroactively applicable prior to 200 I which It also required that anyone whose includes the Petitioner sentence would have been ameliorated by the amended sentences could apply to the Risk Review Panel in accordance 403 45 and of 2001 to those with R S and 2002 inmates sentenced The Court 15 574 22 that the notes consider any eligible inmates such Petitioner herein for possible recommended leniency requires the Panel Initially procedure well La many to inmates and lawyers for ameliorative relief was available from the the Risk Review Panel However in State as 1 26 07 affirmed 951 So 2d 124 this court from punishment branch alone to s Offenders must apply In sentencing when Review Panel court as Dick 06 2223 06 2226 to found and a lesser that sentence the power to reduce executive to the belongs seek this relief in the executive branch enacting this the statute legislature is reviewing the offenders applications the Board of Pardons and are the suggesting to sentencing to the Louisiana the Board of Parole or they is in which Louisiana Risk Review Panel the executive branch that it should consider these ameliorative provisions the thought seeking retroactive application of the ameliorative to the executive branch v the as 133 the supreme court reviewed the statute decision greater a penalty provisions entitled courts some also statute Risk State v Dick 951 So 2d at 133 Weaver denied based applied on sentenced under I Sinclair v Review Panel extensive criminal La extensive criminal clearly contrary to the Risk RS history to the 15 to the habitual offender law deny legislative intent Stalder 867 So 2d 743 La App application his in 1 Cir 10 17 03 4 was He asserts that all persons history 1 529 and and his application passing R S for that the act 15 547 11 have an reason is Weaver offers additional arguments conflicts of law alleging After careful review of his submission clear whether the relief he is Panel or order an recommendation of reverse leniency among other may ministerial duties 03 0584 La law cases clearly grant Weaver be used things 1 Cir 4 2 04 but used only when states he must Panel direct to Kyle v petition a public duty that the law legal authority for judgment dismissing costs is affirmed clearly compel the petition Costs we are unable for mandamus as a to writ that perform La Public Service Commission court It is 654 It sparingly official refuses to an extraordinary issues in never perform a duty the perform Id to us as public officer The Risk Review Panel has reviewed Weaver the only a However Parole Board 878 So 2d 650 by the a s not make to which is defined proceeding summary must be Review or is the Risk Review by discretionary authority of the Panel required by law App remedy which doubtful a Pardons court it this to hearing a Risk the to the the district court and Mandamus is seeking is requiring both of those acts involve to equal protection of the law and violations of are states the Panel must any other action by for mandamus with assessed to AFFIRMED 5 s Earl Weaver application perform them prejudice This is There is no Therefore the at petitioner s
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.
