STATE OF LOUISIANA v. VIDOL POLLARD (2026)

WRIT GRANTED

On September 17, 2026, this Court denied a writ application ¹ from Relator, Vidol Pollard (“Mr. Pollard”), wherein he explained that he filed a pleading entitled “Alternative Mandamus/Mand[a]tory Injunction.” Mr. Pollard complained that the district court failed to comply with this Court's Order in 2026-K-0450 ² directing that it act upon his “Motion to Correct an Illegal Sentence Pursuant to [La. R.S. art. 88.1 and 882].” On October 1, 2026, this Court explained in its denial of Mr. Pollard's writ application that the district court had acted on Mr. Pollard's pleading in a minute entry dated August 28, 2026, and, therefore, Mr. Pollard's writ application was denied as moot.

On October 20, 2026, Mr. Pollard filed the instant writ application asserting that he has “never received any ruling from the district court ․ dated August 28, 2026. Had [Mr. Pollard] received a ruling from the district court[,] [Mr. Pollard] would have never filed an Alternative Mandamus/Mandatory Injunction. In his instant writ application, Mr. Pollard, again, asks this Court to compel the district court to provide him with a copy of the August 28, 2026 ruling and/or minute entry.

Considering the foregoing, if Mr. Pollard's representation is correct, the district court is ordered to provide Mr. Pollard with a copy of the judgment. If Mr. Pollard's representation is incorrect, the district court is ordered to accept, file, and act upon the pleading which is hereby transferred to the district court. The district court is further ordered to provide this Court with a copy of its judgment within 15 days of this order.

New Orleans, Louisiana, this 29th day of October 2026.

JUDGE JOY COSSICH LOBRANO

JUDGE DALE N. ATKINS

JUDGE KAREN K. HERMAN

FOOTNOTES

1.   See State v. Pollard, 2026-0673 (La. App. 4 Cir. 10/01/26).

2.   See State v. Pollard, 2026-0450 (La. App. 4 Cir. 7/16/26).