Bratton v. Steward

337 So.3d 583

Alvin BRATTON, Plaintiff-Appellant

v.James Edward STEWARD, District Attorney for the Parish of Caddo and Jeff Landry, Attorney General for the State of Louisiana, Defendants-Appellees

No. 54,201-CA

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit.

Judgment rendered April 13, 2022.

ALVIN BRATTON, In Proper Person

JAMES E. STEWART, District Attorney, Counsel for Appellee, James Edward Stewart, District Attorney for the Parish of Caddo

TOMMY J. JOHNSON, Assistant District Attorney, JEFFREY M. LANDRY, Attorney General, Counsel for Appellee, Jeff Landry, Attorney General for the State of Louisiana

Before STONE, COX, and THOMPSON, JJ.

COX, J.

This civil appeal arises from the First Judicial District Court, Caddo Parish, Louisiana, based on the criminal conviction of Appellant, Alvin Bratton ("Bratton"). On July 8, 1998, Bratton was convicted of second degree murder and subsequently sentenced to life imprisonment without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence. Bratton's conviction and sentence were affirmed on appeal in State v. Bratton , 32,090 (La. App. 2d Cir. 6/16/99), 742 So. 2d 896 (" Bratton I "). Now, in proper person, Bratton appeals the trial court's judgment granting an exception of no cause of action and dismissing his declaratory action with prejudice. For the following reasons, we affirm.

FACTS

The background in this matter was outlined in this Court's earlier opinion in Bratton I :

On January 20, 1995, the defendant along with Michael Cooks ("Cooks"), Justin Griffin ("Griffin"), Eric Williams ("Williams"), and Victor "Slap" Norris ("Norris") left a party to rob a house for the purpose of obtaining marijuana. The defendant and the four other individuals were members of the "Wilkinson Terrace Boyz," a gang associated with the "Rolling 60's Crips." The robbery occurred at the residence of Jamal Johnson ("Johnson") located at 3526 Darien Street in Shreveport, Louisiana. Johnson was not home at the time; however, Joseph "Joe" Frazier ("Frazier"), Carlos Bryant ("Bryant"), and Ronald Ford ("Ford") were in Johnson's house.

When the defendant and his cohorts reached the Johnson residence, they knocked on the front door and were directed by Bryant, who knew Cooks, to go around to the back door. The defendant and his cohorts, all of whom were armed, entered through the back of the house, brandished their weapons [sic] and demanded to know where the drugs were located as Cooks placed a gun to Bryant's head. Bryant, Ford, and Frazier were taken to different rooms. A padlocked bedroom door was kicked down. The defendant and his cohorts searched the house for drugs and robbed Bryant and Ford. After someone directed Bryant to lie on the kitchen floor, he was shot five times. Ford, who was robbed of twenty dollars, was also shot multiple times after a brief struggle. Both Ford and Bryant survived. Frazier was shot fourteen times and died. While hospitalized for their gunshot injuries, both Ford and Bryant were able to pick the defendant from a photographic [lineup] and to identify him as one of the participants in the robbery and murder.

James Ford, the brother of Ronald Ford, lived in a garage apartment behind the Johnson residence and was home at the time of [the] crime. James Ford heard the gunfire but believed it to be the sound of hammering. A motion sensor light, which James Ford had installed the day before, was triggered as the defendant and the others left the Johnson residence. James Ford saw the defendant leaving the crime scene carrying two firearms. He subsequently identified the defendant in a photographic [lineup] and at trial.

Upon learning that a warrant was out for his arrest, the defendant turned himself [into] the police. At trial, the defendant denied any involvement in the crime. He testified that he accompanied Cooks, Williams, Norris, and Griffin to Darien Street, but waited at a neighbor's house while the others went to the Johnson residence to get some marijuana. According to the defendant, he realized that the others were gone for a long period of time and decided to look for them to ensure that they were not smoking all of the marijuana without him. As he walked down Darien Street, he heard gunfire and saw his group running. Although he did not know why the others were running, the defendant joined them.

The defendant also testified about a use immunity statement he gave to the district attorney's office in which he admitted his participation in the crime. The defendant denied the truthfulness of the statement and attempted to prove that he was coerced into giving the statement by his former counsel and the district attorney's office for its use at the trial of Michael Cooks. The defendant testified that he was promised a plea bargain in exchange for his false statement.

The defense called John Michael McDonald ("McDonald"), the defendant's former counsel, and Mike Pitman ("Pitman"), a former assistant district attorney for Caddo Parish, as witnesses regarding the defendant's prior statement. Both McDonald and Pitman testified that no one asked the defendant to give a false statement. After the defendant waived attorney-client privilege, McDonald testified that the statement given by the defendant was substantially the same as the story that the defendant had told him concerning the events of January 20, 1995. Pitman testified that the defendant provided information in his statement that was outside the scope of the information included in the police report. This information pertained to the identification of a participant in the crime who had not yet been identified by the police. Pitman also testified that the defendant decided not to testify at Cooks’ trial, but that Cooks was nevertheless convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to death for his participation in the robbery and murder. At trial, the defendant's claim that he was not involved in the crime was further contradicted by the testimony of Eric Williams, a co-defendant. Williams testified that the defendant had a weapon and participated in the armed robbery. Williams had previously pled guilty to armed robbery for his [sic] involvement in the crime.

After the two day trial, the jury found the defendant guilty of second degree murder. The district court then sentenced the defendant to life imprisonment without benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence.

In its June 16, 1999, opinion, this Court affirmed Bratton's conviction and sentence. Thereafter, Bratton filed several writ applications with this Court for post-conviction relief. On September 15, 2020, Bratton filed a petition for declaratory judgment naming James Stewart, District Attorney for Caddo Parish, and Jeff Landry, Attorney General for the State of Louisiana, as defendants.¹ Bratton asserted that his amended criminal indictment pursuant to La. R.S. 14:30.1 is invalid because he was never arraigned for second degree murder in Criminal Docket No. 196,603, and the case was not brought before a grand jury. In response, on March 29, 2021, the district attorney's office filed an exception of no cause of action.

At the hearing for the exception of no cause of action, the trial court granted the exception and dismissed Bratton's petition with prejudice. This appeal followed.

DISCUSSION

As a preliminary matter, Bratton argues that this Court should convert his devolutive appeal into a supervisory writ of review. Bratton contends that because he was granted a devolutive appeal and that he filed his petition within the time limitation for seeking a supervisory writ, this Court maintains the authority to convert his devolutive appeal into a supervisory writ of review.

We note that under La. C.C.P. art. 2088, a trial court is divested of its jurisdiction over all matters in cases that are reviewable under the appeal when the order of appeal is granted. La. C.C.P. art. 2088. Specifically, La. C.C.P. art. 2088(A) provides:

The jurisdiction of the trial court over all matters in the case reviewable under the appeal is divested, and that of the appellate court attaches, on the granting of the order of appeal and the timely filing of the appeal bond, in the case of a suspensive appeal or on the granting of the order of appeal, in the case of a devolutive appeal.

Here, the trial court rendered judgment on May 5, 2021, and Bratton filed a notice of intent to seek a devolutive appeal which the trial court granted on May 12, 2021, divesting the trial court of its jurisdiction over the matter on appeal.

The exercise of appellate supervisory jurisdiction is discretionary. The Louisiana Supreme Court stated:

The Louisiana Constitution confers appellate jurisdiction upon the courts of appeal over "all civil matters" and "all matters appealed from family and juvenile courts" and supervisory jurisdiction over "cases which arise within its circuit." La. Const. art. V, § 10 (A). Moreover, the jurisprudence indicates that the decision to convert an appeal to an application for supervisory writs is within the discretion of the appellate courts.

Stelluto v. Stelluto , 05-0074 (La. 6/29/05), 914 So. 2d 34. Because the trial court is divested of its jurisdiction in this matter and we maintain the discretion as to whether we grant supervisory writ, this Court, after consideration of the matter, declines to convert this appeal to an application for a supervisory writ. Further, we do not find that irreparable injury would occur if Bratton's assignments of error are not disposed of by supervisory review.

Exception of No Cause of Action

Taking together, Bratton's assignments of error contend, in sum, that the trial court abused its discretion in granting the State's exception of no cause of action and in dismissing his declaratory action with prejudice.

Bratton asserts that the trial court dismissed his declaratory judgment and failed to grant him a time in which to amend his petition² to state a valid cause of action, in part because it mistakenly confused the State's exception...