Willie Thomas VS The State of Louisiana; and Louisiana Department of Corrections through the Attorney General of the State of Louisiana

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT NO. 2013 CA 0951 J' WILLIE THOMAS r 7% I1 A VERSUS yl' r" ' ' ' THE STATE OF LOUISIANA AND LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS THROUGH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF LOUISIANA, ET AL Judgrrten! Renderer: December 27, 2013 IC ' iC ' X ] C ' A' ] C iC ' X Appealed from the 19th Judicial District Court In and for the Parish of East Baton Rouge State of Louisiana Case No. C589657 The Honorable Wilson Fields, Judge Presiding x r * x Willie Thomas Plaintiff/Appellant Angola, Louisiana Pro Se Terri L. Cannon Counsel for Defendant/Appellee Baton Rouge, Louisiana Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Correctio s iF ' X ' rF ' iC ' X ' iC ' X ' iC BEFORE: KUHN, HIGGINBOTHAM, AND THERIOT, JJ. T IERIOT, J. In this case involving parole eligibiliry for a prisoner serving a life sentence far a second degree murder conviction, the prisoner appeals a screening judgment dismissing his claims. We affirm. Willie Thomas, an inmate in the custody of the Louisiana Deparhnent of Public Safety and Corrections, filed a complaint regarding parole eligibiliry styled as a petition for injunctive and declaratory relief and plea of unconstitutionaliry. Thomas alleges that although he was sentenced in 1975 to life in prison without benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence for a period of twenty years, as was required by La. R.S. 14: 30. 1 at the he time, " has received blanket denials on his numerous Petitions/ Applications in spite of the sentence imposed by the Trial Court in law." with accordance Thomas does not explain what types of Petitions/ Applications" he has filed or with whom. He acknowledged that he has not e austed his administrative remedies. In response to a request for clarification issued by the trial court, Thomas explained that " the basis of his petition is not that the Deparhnent denied him parole eligibility, nar is it against the Parole Board, because the Department and/ or the Parole Board are mandated to follow the law declaratory judgment declaring Thomas applied. argues that as written." Rather, Thomas La. R. S. 15: 574. 4 La. R. S. 15: 574. 4( B), seeks a unconstitutional which as requires commutation of a life sentence to a fixed term before one can be parole eligible, is in direct conflict with the sentencing provision of La. R.S. 14: 30. 1. As a result of this conflict, Thomas alleges that La. R.S. 15: 574. 4 was implicitly repealed by the provision enacting La. R.S. 14: 30. 1, 1973 La. Acts 111, § 4, herewith hereby are which provides repealed." that "[ a] Il laws or parts of laws in conflict Thomas raised a similar Thomas, 2007- 0634 ( La. 1/] a gument 1/ U8), in a previous suit. In State v. 972 So. 2d 323 ( per curiam), Thomas argued that La. C.Cr.P. art. 893, which denies a trial court the authority to suspend a sentence after a defendant has begun to serve it, was implicitly repealed by the enactment of La. R.S. 14: 30. 1. However, the Louisiana Supreme Court determined that the sentencing provision of La. R. S. 1430. 1 and La. C. Cr.P. art. 893 did not conflict, but rather were complementary, as La. C.Cr.P. art. 893 simply added a precondition far probation on a life sentence: When the legislature added the offense of second degree murder to the Criminal Code and provided a sentence of life imprisonment at hard labor without eligibility for parole, probation, or suspension of sentence for 20 years, 1973 La. Acts 111, it did not, by negative implication, give an inmate the right to apply for suspension of sentence and probation after serving 20 years of his life terin, or repeal La. C.Cr.P. art. 893, 1966 La. Acts 310, to the extent that it expressly denies a trial court the authority to suspena a sentence after a defendant has begun to serve it. Kepeals by implication are not favored in the law, State v. Piazza, 596 So. 2d 817, 819 ( La. 1992) ("[ T] here is a presumption against implied repeal, based on the theory that the legislature envisions the whole body of law when it enacts new legislation."). State v. Thomas, 2007- 0634, pp. 1- 2 ( La.1/ I1/ 08), 972 So. 2d 323, 324 ( per curiam). Similarly, La. R. S. 15: 574.4( B), as enacted by Acts 1968, No. 191, does not conflict with La. R.S. 1430. 1( 2), as enacted by Acts 1973, No. 11 L Parole eligibility is d termined by the sentence meted out upon conviction, which is different from eligibiliry for parole consideration, as regulated by R. S. 15: 574, 4. See Bosworth v. Whitley, 627 So. 2d 629, 631 ( La. 1993). Thomas was convicted under La. R. S. 14: 30. 1 in 1975 and has been continuously in custody. Therefore, Thomas is now eligible for parole, but he must obtain a commutation of his sentence to a fixed number of years in accordance with La. R. S. 15: 574.4 in order to be considered for parole. See 3 State v. Henderson, 95- 0267 (La. App. 4th Cir. 4/ 3/ 96), 672 So. 2d 1085, 1092, writ denied, 96- 1160 ( La. 10/ 11/ 96), 680 So. 2d 648. As in Thomas' s previous suit involving article 893, La. R. S. 15: 574. 4 simply added a precondition to Thomas' s eligibility for parole consideration. This is not a constitutional violation, and the court did not err in dismissing his petirion. See BoswoNth 627 So. 2d at 631- 34. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's judgment by this summary disposition in accordance with La. U.R.C. A. Rule 2- 16. 2. A.(2),( 4),( 5), and 6). Appeal costs are assessed against plaintiff-appellant, Willie Thomas. 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.