STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS NICOLE AYMOND & MICHAEL RICHE
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT P.O. Box 16577 Lake Charles LA 70616 (337) 433-9403 NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION Kenneth Lee Riche' Riche' Law Firm P.O. Box 66656 Baton Rouge LA 70896-665 REHEARING ACTION: November 5, 2008 Docket Number: 08 00711-KW STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS NICOLE AYMOND & MICHAEL RICHE Writ Application from Avoyelles Parish Case No. 142,893 / 142,894, 142,895, 142,998 BEFORE JUDGES: Hon. Oswald A. Decuir Hon. J. David Painter Hon. James T. Genovese As counsel of record in the captioned case, you are hereby notified that the application for rehearing filed by Michael Riche has this day been DENIED. Genovese, J., would grant the rehearing and dissents for the following reasons. Genovese, J., Upon further review of this matter, I find our prior writ decision in State v. Aymond, an unpublished writ application bearing docket number 08-711 (La.App. 3 Cir. 8/18/08), to be erroneous. I find State v. Matthieu, 506 So.2d 1209 (La. 1987), inapplicable. I find State v. Case, 363 So.2d 486 (La. 1978), and State v. Loera, 530 So.2d 1271 (La.App. 2 Cir. 1988), writs denied, 536 So.2d 1252, (La. 1989), to be applicable. I agree with the trial court s written reasons for ruling and his ruling granting defendant s motion to suppress. To rule otherwise is to neuter Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure Article 161 and open the floodgates to judge shopping. Without satisfactory proof of one of the judicially recognized exceptions, a city court judge, or any judge authorized to issue a search warrant, cannot simply issue a search warrant outside his jurisdiction in contravention of statutory authorization. Consequently, I would grant the defendant s application for rehearing. cc: Hon. Charles A. Riddle III, Counsel for the Respondent Michael Francis Kelly, Counsel for the Applicant Harold Alan Murry, Counsel for the Respondent STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT P.O. Box 16577 Lake Charles LA 70616 (337) 433-9403 STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT P.O. Box 16577 Lake Charles LA 70616 (337) 433-9403 NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION Harold Alan Murry Attorney at Law P. O. Box 506 Alexandria LA 71309 REHEARING ACTION: November 5, 2008 Docket Number: 08 00711-KW STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS NICOLE AYMOND & MICHAEL RICHE Writ Application from Avoyelles Parish Case No. 142,893 / 142,894, 142,895, 142,998 BEFORE JUDGES: Hon. Oswald A. Decuir Hon. J. David Painter Hon. James T. Genovese As counsel of record in the captioned case, you are hereby notified that the application for rehearing filed by Nicole Aymond has this day been DENIED. Genovese, J., would grant the rehearing and dissents for the following reasons. Genovese, J., Upon further review of this matter, I find our prior writ decision in State v. Aymond, an unpublished writ application bearing docket number 08-711 (La.App. 3 Cir. 8/18/08), to be erroneous. I find State v. Matthieu, 506 So.2d 1209 (La. 1987), inapplicable. I find State v. Case, 363 So.2d 486 (La. 1978), and State v. Loera, 530 So.2d 1271 (La.App. 2 Cir. 1988), writs denied, 536 So.2d 1252, (La. 1989), to be applicable. I agree with the trial court s written reasons for ruling and his ruling granting defendant s motion to suppress. To rule otherwise is to neuter Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure Article 161 and open the floodgates to judge shopping. Without satisfactory proof of one of the judicially recognized exceptions, a city court judge, or any judge authorized to issue a search warrant, cannot simply issue a search warrant outside his jurisdiction in contravention of statutory authorization. Consequently, I would grant the defendant s application for rehearing. cc: Hon. Charles A. Riddle III, Counsel for the Respondent Michael Francis Kelly, Counsel for the Applicant Kenneth Lee Riche', Counsel for the Respondent STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT P.O. Box 16577 Lake Charles LA 70616 (337) 433-9403
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.
