STATE v. ROBERTSON (2022)

Application for reconsideration not considered. See Louisiana Supreme Court Rule IX, § 6.

Although I previously voted to grant the writ application in this matter and continue to believe this matter should have been granted and docketed, I am constrained by La. S.Ct. Rule IX, § 6 and La. C.Cr.P. art. 922(D) to not consider this request for reconsideration.

Supreme Court Rule IX, Sec. 6; states that “[a]n application for rehearing will not be considered when the court has merely granted or denied an application for a writ of certiorari or a remedial or other supervisory writ. ․” In this case, defendant's original writ was denied 4-3, with three justices voting to grant the writ.

Consequently, defendant filed an application for rehearing (reconsideration), which was “not considered,” citing Supreme Court Rule IX, Sec. 6 (hereinabove referred to).

The problem I have implementing this supreme court rule, and not considering this application for rehearing (reconsideration), is the fact that not all applications for rehearing (reconsideration) after a writ denial are “not considered.” Some have been granted, and there lies the inconsistency. Either the rule must be amended, or else all applications for rehearing (reconsideration) must not be considered. There must be consistency. I find this 4-3 writ denial and subsequent rehearing (reconsideration) denial warrants a grant and docket. If the rule has been broken once before (and it has on more than one occasion), it can be broken again—until it is fixed via consistent as opposed to arbitrary application.

Weimer, C.J., concurs and assigns reasons. Genovese, J., would grant and assigns reasons. Griffin, J., would grant for reasons assigned by Justice Genovese. Hughes, J., recused.