Freddie Lewis VS Secretary, Louisiana State Department of Public Safety and Corrections
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT 2012 CA 1890 FREDDIE LEWIS VERSUS SECRET Y LOUISIANA STATE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONS ET AL DATE OFJUDGMENT UN 0 7 2013 ON APPEAL FROM THE NINETEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT NLJMBER 605 SECTION 27 PARISH OF EAST BATON ROUGE 604 STATE OF LOUISIANA HONORABLE TODD W HERNANDEZ JUDGE Freddie Lewis Appellant Petitioner Winnfield Louisiana In Proper Person Jonathan R Counsel for Defendant Appellee James M LeBlanc Secretary Baton Vining Rouge Louisiana Louisiana Department ofPublic Safety and Corrections BEFORE KLTfIN PETTIGREW AND McDONALD JJ Disposition AFFII2MED IN KU J appellant Petitioner Freddie Lewis an inmate serving four concurrent sentences for distribution of cocaine appeals from the district court dismissal with s prejudice of his request for a writ ofhabeas corpus We affirm FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Following his convictions on four counts of distribution of cocaine appellant was sentenced on November 27 2007 to twenty years at hard labor in the Louisiana Department of Corrections the Department on each count to be served concurrently On September 30 2011 he filed a petition requesting a writ of habeas corpus ordering his immediate release as well as monetary compensation for his illegal detention He alleged that his continued detention was illegal because although the trial court sentenced him to the custody of the Department his delivery has never been accepted by the Department He claimed that the Sheriffls Office of Bossier Parish which is where he was housed pending conviction never transmitted to the Department the proper commitment papers required by La C art 892 Specifically he complained that his commitment P Cr documents only included a bill of information rather than an indichnent as required by Article 892 Accarding to appellant this deficiency resulted in the a 1 B rejection of his delivery to the Deparhnent pursuant to La R 15 S 566 Cwhich provides that when the documents required by Article 892 are not tendered with the prisoner the Department should refuse the prisoner delivery Due to the alleged s noncompliance with Article 892 appellant argued there was no legal authority far his custody Additionaily appellant alleged that several Department records including his master records were falsified to erroneously indicate that he actually was transferred into the Department scustody 2 After hearing oral arguments the commissioner issued a written report recommending that appellant request be dismissed as lacking merit In reaching s this conclusion the commissioner noted that any failure of the sheriffls office to provide proper documentation did not affect the validiry of appellant sentences to s the custody of the Department under Article 892 The commissioner further D concluded that appellant failed to establish the falsification of any records Subsequently the district court rendered judgment dismissing appellant request s for habeas relief with prejudice in accordance with the commissioner report which s it adopted as its reasons Appellant has now appealed ANALYSIS Article 892 requires that the sheriff transmit certain documents to the Department upon delivery of a prisoner including a of the indictment under copy which the defendant was convicted Appellant alieged that his commihnent papers were deficient because they included onl a biil of information rather than an indictment This argument acks merit because under La C art 934 the P Cr 6 term indictment by definition includes a bill of information unless there is a clear intent to restrict the tenn to the finding of a grand jury which is cleariy 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 alidity ofappellant convictions or sentences which constitute the legal s authority for the Deparnnent custody s See La C art 892 Roland v P Cr D der 0957 La Sui 10 p 3 App 1st Cir 3 unpublished Additionally the 11 25 record supports the district court sfinding that appellant failed to prove his Article 892 Dprovides that f to comply with the provisions of this Article shail not ailure aYfect the ealidity of a prosecution convictiou or sentence 3 allegation that the documents in the record that indicate he is an inmate in the custody of the Department were falsified Appellant failed to establish his claim that he has never been accepted into the Deparnnent scustody For these reasons the judgment of the district court dismissing appellant s demands is affinned All costs of this appeal are assessed to appellant Freddie Lewis AFFIRMED 4
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.
