Jeremy M. Boddye VS James Leblanc, Linda Ramsey and Louisiana Department of Corrections, Records Department
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT 2010 CA 1008 JEREMY M BODDYE VERSUS LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONS ET AL Judgment Rendered December 22 2010 On Appeal from the 19 Judicial District Court In and for the Parish of East Baton Rouge Docket No 578 Section 23 127 Honorable William A Morvant Judge Presiding William L Kline Baton Rouge LA Counsel for Defendant Appellant Department of Public Safety and Corrections Jeremy M Boddye PlaintiffAppellee DeQuincy LA In Proper Person BEFORE PARRO GUIDRY AND HUGHES JJ v Z 4 CCA 21 Co HUGHES J This is an appeal of a judgment of the 19 Judicial District Court overturning a decision of the Department of Public Safety and Corrections the DPSC For the following reasons we remand this matter to the district court for the specific purpose of remanding this matter to the administrative level of the DPSC to allow the introduction of the sentencing transcript as evidence into the administrative record FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Appellee Jeremy Boddye was an inmate in the custody of the DPSC when the following offenses were committed On August 2 2006 Mr Boddye was arrested and charged with burglary a violation of LSAR 14 and illegal S 62 possession of stolen things a violation of LSAR S 69 14 Mr Boddye pled no contest to both charges pursuant to two plea agreements and on January 21 2009 Mr Boddye was sentenced to five years for each violation to run consecutively Mr Boddye remained in custody for a total of 826 days prior to sentencing Dissatisfied with the DPSC calculation of his release date Mr Boddye s instituted an action under the Corrections Administrative Remedy Procedure CARP LSAR 15 et seq arguing that he was entitled to jail credits for S 1171 the time he served prior to his sentencing on both sentences When he was denied relief at both administrative steps Mr Boddye filed for judicial review of the DPSC decision After the submission of briefs and a hearing the commissioner of the 19 JDC issued a recommendation that the DPSC decision be overturned A s judgment was signed adopting the recommendation of the commissioner and reversing the DPSC decision The DPSC appeals s The offices of the commissioner of the 19 JDC were created by LSAR 13 The commissioners S 711 hear and recommend the disposition of criminal and civil proceedings arising out of the incarceration of inmates LSAR 13 A commissioner written findings and recommendations are submitted to a S 713 s district court judge who may accept reject or modify them LSAR 13 S 713 LAW AND ANALYSIS Judicial review of an adverse agency decision is available under the CARP but is confined to the record LSAR 15 S 1177 5 A as developed by the administrative proceedings A reviewing court may only reverse or modify an agency decision if substantial rights of the appellant are prejudiced because the administrative findings inferences conclusions or decision are 1 in violation of constitutional or statutory provisions 2 in excess of the agency statutory authority s 3 made upon unlawful procedure 4 affected by error of law 5 arbitrary capricious or an abuse of discretion or 6 manifestly erroneous See LSAR 15 Pacificorp Capital Inc v State Through Div of S 1177 9 A Admin Office of State Purchasing 921729 p 45 La App 1 Cir 8 94 11 647 So 11 22 1125 writ denied 942315 La 11 646 So 387 2d 94 18 2d The district court has no authority to accept evidence or testimony at the 06 6 hearing on review Curry v Cain 05 2251 p 6 La App 1 Cir 10 944 2d So at 635 639 see also McDowell v Taylor 991587 p 5 La App 1 Cir 00 23 6 762 So 1149 1151 However if the district court determines that 2d additional evidence is needed it does have the authority to order the addition of such evidence at the administrative level Thus the district court must remand the case to the agency for the evidence to be introduced See LSAR 1 S 5 4 A 1177 8 A Curry v Cain 944 So at 639 2d It is well settled that the determination of the sentence a defendant is to serve and what if any conditions are to be imposed on that sentence is made by the trial judge not the defendant custodian The custodian obligation is to see s s 1860 that the sentence imposed is the sentence served Blair v Stalder 99 p 9 La App 1 Cir 1 798 So 132 139 State ex rel Pierre v Maggio 01 31 2d s 445 So 425 426 La 1984 Under this court prior jurisprudence regarding 2d jail credit computation disputes the court looks to the sentencing minutes and 3 sentencing transcripts to determine the intent of the sentencing judge See Williams v Cooper 052360 La App 1 Cir 10 945 So 48 Moreover 06 6 2d it is well established that in cases where there is a discrepancy between a minute entry and a transcript the transcript prevails State v Lynch 441 So 732 La 2d 1983 In the instant case the DPSC argues that the minute entry is unclear as to the sentencing judge intent and could be interpreted in its favor to order that Mr s Boddye only receive credit for time served on one of the two consecutive sentences Mr Boddye argues that the sentencing transcript attached to his brief to the commissioner and not challenged as to accuracy resolves any doubt that the trial judge intended that Mr Boddye receive credit for time served on each of the two sentences This argument was accepted by the commissioner and it appears that it may ultimately prove successful However a review of the record reveals that the sentencing transcript was not introduced into the administrative record The commissioner therefore erred in considering the transcript on review Instead the commissioner should have remanded the matter to the agency for the limited purpose of introducing that evidence pursuant to LSAR 15 S 1177 4 A We therefore vacate the judgment and remand Mr Boddye appeal to the district s court with instructions that this action be remanded to the agency for the limited purpose of introducing the sentencing transcripts as evidence into the administrative record CONCLUSION For the reasons assigned herein the judgment of the district court is vacated and this matter is remanded to the district court with instructions to remand to the agency for the limited purpose of introducing the sentencing transcripts as evidence VACATED AND REMANDED GI
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.
