STATE OF LOUISIANA v. ANTOINETTE FRANK (2025)

The Attorney General is entitled by law to participate in a case when invited to do so by a District Attorney in accordance with La. Const. art. IV, § 8(2), which provides that “the attorney general shall have authority ․ upon the written request of a district attorney, to advise and assist in the prosecution of any criminal case,” and when the warden is named as a defendant, in his or her official capacity, see La. Const art. IV, § 8(1) (which grants the Attorney General authority to “intervene in any civil action or proceeding”).¹ However, ultimately, this matter should not be considered because it was filed untimely pursuant to Supreme Court Rules, as applied to numerous other litigants previously.

For the reasons detailed by Justice Guidry in his dissent in this matter, I find that the state's writ application was not filed timely and thus should not be considered by this court. See Girod Titling Trust v. Pittman Assets, L.L.C., 25-0192 (La. 4/15/25), 406 So.3d 414 (citing La. S.Ct. Rules X, § 5 and XLII, § 6). I disagree with the exercise of discretion to have this untimely writ application “deemed” to be timely.

Filing timely is critical as it determines whether a ruling is final or not. See La. C.Cr.P. art. 922 and La. C.C.P. art. 2166, which define the finality of judgments. As noted by Justice Guidry, timeliness impacts whether this court has or does not have jurisdiction.

The per curiam opinion should be limited to resolving the timeliness issue. Unfortunately, the per curiam further engages in a discussion of recent revisions to the law on post-conviction relief, other cases, and a case in another jurisdiction. This discussion is, at best, dicta, but potentially more problematic because it could be construed as an advisory opinion on the legality of recently enacted laws which may well be challenged as going beyond the powers bestowed on the attorney general by our constitution. See, generally, State v. Lee, 22-01827, pp. 12-25 (La. 9/1/23), 370 So.3d 408, 424-432 (Weimer, C.J., dissenting). This court should not issue advisory opinions. See American Waste & Pollution Control Co. v. St. Martin Parish Police Jury, 627 So.2d 158, 162 (La. 1993).

Our system of justice was established based on the rule of law which in its essence means that the law applies to all exactly the same. Whether wealthy or impecunious, powerful or not, or having prestige or influence or not, all should stand before our system of justice as equals. A failure to apply the law consistently results in citizens questioning decisions of the judiciary and the rule of law itself.

The writ application of every other litigant who filed late, as occurred here, has been dismissed by this court as untimely. Accordingly, I would grant the respondent's motion to dismiss the state's writ application because it was filed untimely pursuant to a court rule previously consistently applied to all others who asked this court to address their case. For these reasons, I respectfully dissent from the per curiam opinion.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Post conviction relief proceedings have both criminal and civil legal characteristics. State v. Harris, 18-1012, pp. 10-11 (La. 7/9/20), 340 So.3d 845, 853.

WEIMER, C.J., dissents for the reasons assigned by Guidry, J., and assigns additional reasons.