STATE OF LOUISIANA v. ROBERT CEASEAR (2026)

WRIT DENIED

Relator-Defendant, Robert L. Ceasear (“Relator”),¹ appearing pro se, seeks a writ of mandamus, claiming that the district court has failed to act upon numerous pleadings.² Notably, in response to the writ that Relator filed in 2025-K-0613, this Court denied relief, stating in part:

On October 2, 1997, relator, Robert Ceasear, was found guilty as charged of second-degree murder and the court imposed the mandatory sentence of life imprisonment at hard labor without benefit of parole. This court affirmed. State v. Ceasar, [19]98-0010 (La. App. 4 Cir. 9/29/99) (unpub'd), writ denied, 99-3216 (La. 4/20/00), 760 So.2d 342.

In the instant filing, relator seeks review of the district court's ruling on August 20, 2025, which denied his: (1) Petition for Mutual Post-Conviction Plea Agreement; (2) Petition to Make Judgement of Another Louisiana Court Executory; and Memorandum in Support of Petition to Dismiss Indictment Based on Grand Jury Abuse; (3) Petition to Set Aside Conviction and Dismiss Prosecution; (4) Petition for Assistance of Counsel by Indigent Defendant and Affidavit; and (5) Petition for Status Conference and Updating Pending Collateral Submissions. The district court's judgment reflects that it conducted a “thorough review” of the pleadings and applicable law and found relator's claims procedurally barred.

A review of the application and its attachments demonstrates no error in the district court's judgment, as all of relator's claims are barred by the prescriptive period, see La. C.Cr.P. art. 930.8, impermissibly repetitive, see La. C.Cr.P. art 930.4, and/or do not constitute grounds for post-conviction relief, see La. C.Cr.P. art. 930.3. See also State v. Ceasar, [20]18-0536 (La. 9/21/18), 252 So.3d 891 (denying writs; “The application was not timely filed in the district court, and relator fails to carry his burden to show that an exception applies. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8; State ex rel. Glover v. State, [19]93-2330 (La. 9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189․ Relator's claims have now been fully litigated in accord with La. C.Cr.P. art. 930.6, and this denial is final. Hereafter, unless he can show that one of the narrow exceptions authorizing the filing of a successive application applies, relator has exhausted his right to state collateral review.”). Accordingly, the writ is denied.

State v. Ceaesar, unpub., 2025-0613 (La. App. 4 Cir. 10/2/25).

Relator then sought review in the Louisiana Supreme Court, which denied writs with a per curiam, stating: “Applicant has previously exhausted his right to state collateral review. See State v. Ceasar, 2018-0536 (La. 9/21/18), 252 So.3d 891.” State v. Ceasear, 2025-01420 (La. 5/12/26), 432 So.3d 748. Accordingly, Relator is not entitled to mandamus relief in this matter. This writ application is denied.

New Orleans, Louisiana this 8th day of October, 2026.

JUDGE KAREN K. HERMAN

JUDGE JOY COSSICH LOBRANO

JUDGE MONIQUE G. MORIAL

FOOTNOTES

1.   Relator's last name has been previously misspelled as Ceasar on at least two occasions.

2.   Relator maintains that there multiple petitions and motions still pending before the district court, including: Original Post-conviction Relief Application and Briefs in Support, Superseding Supplement; First and Second Supplement, State Writ Of Habeas Corpus; Motion For Release On Own Recognizance; Petitions For Subpoena Duces Tecum; Notice Of Motion For New Trial Or Arrest Of Judgment; Petition For Arrest Of Judgment; Affidavit In Support Of Petition For Consideration Of Motion To Dismiss Bill Of Indictment Or, Alternatively, To Arrest Judgment; Notice Of Petition-Arrest Of Judgment On The Grounds Of Lack Of Subject-Matter Jurisdiction, Jurisdiction, And Racial Discrimination In The Grand Jury Quorum To Reach A Concurrence Scheme Infringes Upon African-American Defendants ’ Privileges And Immunities, And Abridges A African-American Defendants ’ Guarantee To Equal Protection Of Laws And Procedure; Petition To Quash Bill Of Indictment Ab Initio, Nunc Pro Tunc; Petition For New Trial Or Arrest Of Judgment-Nunc Pro Tunc; Petition To Set Aside Conviction And Dismiss Prosecution; Rule To Show Cause Motion; Memorandum In Support Of Petition To Dismiss Bill Of Indictment Based On Grand Jury Abuse; And, Objection And Traverse To Any Pretermit Introduction Of Arguments That The Issues And Claims Are Subject To A Procedural Bar.