STATE OF LOUISIANA v. BETTY BROADEN (2026)

Plaintiff, Betty Broaden, appeals the dismissal of her petition for compensation for wrongful conviction pursuant to La. R.S. 15:572.8. For the following reasons, we find this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider the appeal, and we dismiss the appeal and remand this matter to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On May 11, 2022, Plaintiff filed a petition for compensation for wrongful conviction pursuant to La. R.S. 15:572.8, alleging that her previous conviction for second-degree murder had been vacated based on a joint motion filed by Plaintiff and the State. On October 29, 2024, the trial judge, the Honorable Darryl Derbigny presiding, orally denied Plaintiff's petition and stated on the record that a judgment and written reasons would be provided to the parties.

On April 2, 2025, Plaintiff filed a “Motion for Entry of Judgment and For Written Reasons.”¹ On May 15, 2025, an ad hoc judge, the Honorable Calvin Johnson, issued a written judgment dismissing Plaintiff's petition for compensation. The judgement provided:

After considering the Ruling, the arguments of counsel, and the applicable law:

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Petition for Compensation Pursuant to Louisiana Revised Statute § 15:572.8 filed by Betty Broaden is DENIED; and

IT IS FURTHER HEREBY ORDERED that all claims against State of Louisiana be and are hereby dismissed with prejudice.

The signature line for the judgment provided the typed name of the former presiding trial judge, “Judge Darryl A. Derbigny.” The ad hoc judge who issued the judgment crossed out the signature line for the written judgment and replaced it with the hand written notation “Calvin Johnson, Ad Hoc” and the ad hoc judge's signature. This timely appeal followed.

JURISDICTIONAL ISSUE

“An appellate court cannot determine the merits of an appeal unless its subject matter jurisdiction is properly invoked by a valid final judgment.” Harris v. iBuild, LLC, 25-0410, p. 3 (La. App. 4 Cir. 3/4/26), --- So.3d ---, ---, 2026 WL 607872, quoting Moulton v. Stewart Enter., Inc., 17-0243, 17-0244, p. 3 (La. App. 4 Cir. 8/3/17), 226 So.3d 569, 571 (citations omitted). “Appellate courts have a duty to examine whether subject matter jurisdiction exists sua sponte, ‘even when the parties do not raise the issue.’ ” Harris v. iBuild, LLC, 25-0410, p. 7 (La. App. 4 Cir. 3/4/26), --- So.3d at --- (quoting Moon v. City of New Orleans, 15-1092, p. 5 (La. App. 4 Cir. 3/16/16), 190 So.3d 422, 425)(citations omitted); see also La. C.C.P. art. 2162.

“Louisiana law requires that a judgment be signed by the judge who presided over the matter.” Harris v. iBuild, LLC, 25-0410, p. 4 (La. App. 4 Cir. 3/4/26), --- So.3d at --- (quoting Jones v. Whips Elec., LLC, 22-0095, p. 3 (La. App. 4 Cir. 9/16/22), 348 So.3d 849, 852). “A judgment signed by a judge who did not preside over the hearing is invalid unless the signing authority is expressly conferred by statute and the statutory requirements are strictly satisfied.” Harris v. iBuild, LLC, 25-0410, pp. 4-5 (La. App. 4 Cir. 3/4/26), --- So.3d at ---. This Court, in Lassalle v. Napoleon, 23-0705 (La. App. 4 Cir. 4/11/24), 390 So.3d 805, recently considered a statutory exception provided for in La. R.S. 13:4209, and set forth the statutory and jurisprudential requirements to effect a valid and final judgment when the judge issuing the written judgment is different than the judge who presided over the trial of the matter. This Court instructed the following:

The fundamental requirements of a valid, final judgment include not only proper decretal language, but also the correct judge's signature. Even a perfectly worded judgment will be invalid if signed by the wrong judge; “[f]ailure to have the judgment signed by the [correct] judge is a fatal defect.” Gail S. Stephenson, Drafting Lucid, Unmistakable (and Valid) Judgments, 56 LA. B.J. 181, 182 (2008). Louisiana courts have held that the judge required, under La. C.C.P. art. 1911(A), to sign a judgment is the judge who presided over the hearing or the trial. See Jones v. Whips Elec., LLC, 22-0095, p. 3 (La. App. 4 Cir. 9/16/22), 348 So.3d 849, 852 (citation omitted). A judgment signed by the wrong judge—a judge who did not preside over the hearing or trial—does not constitute a valid final judgment. Id. (citations omitted). But, La. C.C.P. art. 1911(A) provides that the Legislature can create statutory exceptions. Id.

One such statutory exception—referred to as the successor-judge exception—is codified in La. R.S. 13:4209. This exception authorizes a successor judge, in certain circumstances, to sign a judgment. The jurisprudential requirements for the successor-judge exception to apply are as follows:

• A successor judge must state in the judgment that he or she is complying with La. R.S. 13:4209. Jones, 22-0095, p. 4, 348 So.3d at 852 (citations omitted);

• A successor judge must state in the judgment that he or she has reviewed any evidence the predecessor judge heard. If the successor judge fails to make such statement, the judgment signed by the successor judge will not be a valid, final judgment. Jones, 22-0095, p. 5, 348 So.3d at 853;

• A successor judge must indicate in the judgment that he or she has considered the merits of the case. Louisiana Paving Co., Inc. v. St. Charles Par. Pub. Sch., 593 So.2d 892, 895 (La. App. 5th Cir. 1992);

• A successor judge must have before him or her the evidence that was introduced before the predecessor judge; “the statutory mandate is met only when the trial judge has before him or her the evidence, i.e., testimony and exhibits, that the previous judge received in evidence.” Thomas v. Proctor & Gamble, 03-0061, p. 3 (La. App. 4 Cir. 5/21/03), 848 So.2d 667, 669; and

• When there is compliance with these jurisprudential requirements in the record, the judgment is valid, final, and appealable. Jones, 22-0095, p. 4, 348 So.3d at 852 (citations omitted).

Lassalle v. Napoleon, 23-0705, pp. 4-5 (La. App. 4 Cir. 4/11/24), 390 So.3d 805, 809-10 (footnotes omitted).

In this case, the record on appeal reflects that the judge who issued the final judgment at issue in this appeal did not preside over the trial of the case. Further, the record demonstrates that the judgment appealed does not comply with the statutory and jurisprudential requirements set forth above.

First, as discussed above, the trial judge who issued the judgment failed to state that he was not the judge who presided over the trial of the case or that he complied with the successor statute, La. R.S. 13:4209. Second, the trial court judgment does not indicate whether the ad hoc judge issuing the judgment considered any evidence previously considered by the presiding judge or whether he specifically considered the merits of the petition for compensation for wrongful conviction. We therefore find that the judgment appealed is not a valid, final, and appealable judgment and that this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider the appeal.

DECREE

Accordingly, for the reasons provided herein, we find that this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider the appeal. We dismiss the appeal and remand to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

APPEAL DISMISSED; REMANDED

FOOTNOTES

1.   On November 30, 2024, the trial judge issued a written “Ruling” denying the petition. The ruling however did not dismiss Plaintiff's petition and did not contain decretal language sufficient to render it a final and appealable judgment. Moreover, notice of the November 30, 2024 written ruling was not provided to the parties.

Judge Monique G. Morial

LEDET, J., CONCURS IN THE RESULT