Trevor Holmes VS Louisiana Department Public Safety & Corrections
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT NO 2011 CA 2221 TREVOR HOLMES VERSUS LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONS Judgment Rendered June 8 2012 On Appeal from the 19th Judicial District Court In and for the Parish of East Baton Rouge State of Louisiana Trial Court No 580 722 c Honorable Trudy M White Judge Presiding l Trevor Holmes Plaintiff Appellant Jackson LA In Proper Person Jonathan R Vining Baton Rouge LA Attorney for Defendant Appellee James M LeBlanc Secretary Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections BEFORE CARTER C PARRO AND HIGGINBOTHAM JJ J HIGGINBOTHAM J Plaintiff appellant Trevor Holmes is an inmate in the custody of the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections DPSC Holmes filed a petition for judicial review in the Nineteenth Judicial District Court seeking review of DPSC final administrative decision rendered under the Corrections s Administrative Remedy Procedure Act Holmes challenged DPSC computation s of his parole eligibility date The district court affirmed the DPSC decision For the following reasons we affirm the district court judgment BACKGROUND The district court commissioner ordered DPSC to file supplemental documentation in the administrative record that indicated Holmes was convicted of manslaughter and attempted manslaughter on February 12 1998 Holmes was sentenced to serve 40 years at hard labor for manslaughter and 20 years at hard labor for attempted manslaughter to be served concurrently This court affirmed s Holmes convictions and sentences in his criminal appeal State v Holmes 99 0631 La App 1st Cir 2 754 So 1132 1133 writ denied 788 So 00 18 2d 2d 440 La 2001 DPSC calculated s Holmes parole eligibility based on the amended provisions of La R 15 effective January 1 1997 which requires that S 574 B 4 inmates convicted of a crime of violence serve 85 of their sentence prior to being deemed parole eligible Holmes maintains that his offenses were committed on December 4 1995 which was prior to the effective date of the referenced statute and therefore DPSC application of the 85 provision to his parole eligibility s 1 The office of commissioner of the Nineteenth Judicial District Court was created by La R S 711 13 to hear and recommend disposition of criminal and civil proceedings arising out of the incarceration of state prisoners La R 13 The commissioner written findings and S 713 A s recommendations are submitted to a district court judge who may accept reject or modify them La R 13 S 71 5 C 3 2 Manslaughter and attempted manslaughter are crimes of violence See La R 14 S 2 4 B W constituted an ex post facto application of the law in violation of his constitutional rights Additionally Holmes argues that DPSC application ofthe 85 provision s to his parole eligibility is contrary to this court ruling concerning his application s for a supervisory writ of review in his criminal case involving the district court s denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence See State v Holmes 2011 0951 La App 1st Cir 8 unpublished writ action 11 22 Following an October 8 2010 hearing the commissioner issued a recommendation that DPSC final administrative decision be affirmed reasoning s that Holmes was convicted after the effective date of the pertinent statutory provisions which specifically provided that the 85 provision only applied to persons convicted of offenses on or after January 1 1997 The commissioner also noted that a change in the law affecting an inmate parole eligibility does not s violate the prohibition against ex post facto laws because the amended statute did ing not alter the definition of criminal conduct nor increase the penalty citing State ex rel Olivieri v State 2000 0172 La 2 779 So 735 744 cert denied 01 21 2d 533 U 936 121 S 2566 150 L 730 2001 and Williams v Creed S Ct 2d Ed 20070614 La App 1st Cir 1 978 So 419 42324 writ denied 2008 07 21 2 2d 0433 La 10 18 So 111 09 2 3d After conducting a de novo review the district court adopted the s commissioner recommendation as its reasons for its July 2 2011 judgment affirming DPSC final administrative decision and dismissing Holmes petition s s with prejudice and at his cost Holmes appeals the district court judgment still s maintaining his ex post facto claim and contending that the district court s 3 Louisiana Revised Statute 15 was amended and reenacted by 1995 La Acts No B 4 574 1 effective January 1 1997 Section 3 of Act 1099 specifically states that the provisions of this Act shall apply only to persons convicted of offenses on or after the effective date of this Act Emphasis added The focus of Section 3 is on the date of conviction not the date the offenses were committed if the legislature had intended for the date of the offense to trigger whether Act 1099 applied it could have easily provided that the Act would apply only to persons convicted ofoffenses committed on or after the effective date of the Act 1099 3 judgment is contrary to this court ruling in his criminal case We disagree with s s Holmes position ANALYSIS At the outset we note that our August 22 2011 criminal writ action occurred after the district court July 2 2011 judgment in this civil matter In the criminal s matter we granted a supervisory writ of review concerning the district court s denial of Holmes motion to correct an illegal sentence s In that criminal writ proceeding we merely amended the district court illegally restrictive sentences s and because we found that the district court sentencing error was non s discretionary we removed the reference to Holmes parole eligibility in his s sentences We followed well established jurisprudence holding that parole eligibility is to be determined by DPSC pursuant to the directives of La R S 4 574 15 not by the district court See St Amant v 19th Judicial District Court 94 0567 La 9 678 So 536 enforcement granted 94 0567 La 96 3 2d 97 27 6 696 So 984 See also State v Lanieu 98 1260 La App 1st Cir 2d 99 1 4 734 So 89 96 writ denied 991259 La 10 750 So 962 and 2d 99 8 2d State v Miller 96 2040 La App 1st Cir 11 703 So 698 701 writ 97 7 2d denied 98 0039 La 5 719 So 459 The criminal writ proceeding has 98 15 2d no bearing on our ruling in this civil appeal which involves the separate and distinct matter of whether DPSC correctly applied La R 15 S 574 4to calculate s Holmes parole eligibility in its final administrative decision It is important to note that parole eligibility and eligibility for parole consideration are distinct and different matters Bosworth v Whitley 627 So 629 631 La 1993 See also 2d Lay v Louisiana Dept of Correction Stalder ex rel Ieyoub 98 0592 La App 1st Cir 4 734 So 782 785 writ denied 99 1173 La 9 747 So 99 1 2d 99 17 2d 1102 4 As for the ex post facto claim Holmes relies on our decision in Lanieu 734 2d So at 96 He argues that under Lanieu application of the 85 provision to his offenses which were committed prior to the effective date of the 1995 amendment of La R 15 exposed him to additional penalties for his criminal S 574 B 4 conduct in violation of the constitutional prohibitions against ex post facto laws However we agree with the commissioner reasoning and point out that the s Louisiana Supreme Court narrowed the focus of ex post facto analysis in the Olivieri case which was decided after the now outdated Lanieu While the supreme court recognized that in previous ex post facto analysis Louisiana jurisprudence had broadly focused on whether the change in a law operated to the disadvantage of an accused the Olivieri court adopted the federal approach to ex post facto analysis focusing on whether the change in the law altered the definition of criminal conduct or increased the penalty by which the crime was punishable Olivieri 779 So at 743 44 Williams 978 So at 423 2d 2d Thus the relevant inquiry is not whether a subsequent change in the law operated to an inmate s disadvantage or impacted an inmate parole eligibility but whether the change in s the law altered the definition of criminal conduct or increased a criminal penalty Olivieri 779 So at 743 44 2d Because the 1995 amendment of La R S B 4 574 15 merely affected Holmes parole eligibility calculations and did not s expose him to additional penalties for his criminal conduct or alter the definition of the criminal conduct we find that there was no ex postfacto violation CONCLUSION After an extensive review of the entire record we agree with the district s court judgment upholding DPSC decision and dismissing Holmes petition s s The 85 provision in La R 15 became effective before Holmes was S 574 B 4 convicted Furthermore changes in parole eligibility calculations in the amended statute do not alter the definition of criminal conduct or increase the penalty by 5 which the crime was punishable Consequently DPSC application of the 85 s provision to restrictions s Holmes parole eligibility does not implicate ex post facto Thus Holmes contention that DPSC has improperly calculated his s parole eligibility date is without merit Therefore we affirm the judgment of the district court All costs of this appeal are assessed to plaintiff appellant Trevor Holmes 7uIDo11 t3W1 2
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.
