STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT
NO. 2023 CA 0549
WESLEY SINCLAIR RICKS 499599

VERSUS STATE OF LOUISIANA, LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HOSPITALS/VITAL RECORDS Judgment Rendered: 

### NOV Q 3 2023
Appealed from the 19th Judicial District Court In and for the Parish of East Baton Rouge

State of Louisiana Docket No. 721497 

### The Honorable Donald R.Johnson, Judge Presiding Wesley Ricks Angola, Louisiana Plaintiff/ Appellant Pro Se

Elizabeth B. Desselle Counsel for Defendant/Appellee, Baton Rouge, Louisiana Louisiana Department of Public 

### Safety and Corrections

BEFORE: McCLENDON, HESTER,AND MILLER,JJ.MILLER, J.



## Wesley Sinclair Ricks appeals the district court's judgment dismissing his petition forjudicial review,with prejudice. Forthe following reasons, we affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

### Wesley Sinclair Ricks (" Ricks") 

### is an offender in the legal custody of the 

### Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections (" the Department"). Ricks 

### was convicted of five counts of aggravated rape and four counts of cruelty to juveniles. On April 8, 2014, he was sentenced to five life sentences, without the benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence. He was also sentenced to four ten-year sentences. 

### On March 28, 2022, Ricks executed an Administrative Remedy Procedure ARP") complaint. Ricks contended that he was a prisoner at the Louisiana State 

### Penitentiary; 

### the Louisiana State Penitentiary did not have any indictment, information, or affidavit in its possession showing that Ricks was legally charged 

## with any offense or crime under Louisiana law; any indictment, information, or affidavit pertaining to Ricks that was a result of fraud or forgery should be withdrawn;the administrative remedy procedure was proper;theTwentieth Judicial District Court (" 20th JDC") had subject matter jurisdiction to grant the relief 

### requested; and there was an error in his time computation. Ricks requested any 

### indictment, information, affidavit, or documentary evidence that was fraudulent or forged to be furnished to him and requested a hearing before the 20th JDC. Ricks' s 

### ARP complaint was received by the Legal Programs Department on April 8, 2022, and it was assigned case number LSP - 2022-0795 (" ARP No. LSP - 2022-0795"). 

### On May 4, 2022, a " First Step Response Form" was prepared by the "ARDC Specialist III" 

### and signed by the " Unit Head." The form stated that Ricks filed an 

### Administrative Remedy to request reliefofhis conviction from the 20th JDC but his conviction was obtained in the Fourth Judicial District Court (" 4th JDC"). The form

2

### concluded that there is no reliefto be sought in the 20th JDC, so Ricks' s request for



### reliefwas denied. On May 5, 2022, Ricks received the " First Step Response Form" regarding his request forremedy underARP No.LSP - 2022-0795. He indicatedthat he was not satisfied with the response and.wished to proceed to Step Two. Ricks contended that the 0 JDC exceeded its jurisdiction and the 20th JDC has subject matterjurisdiction ofthe offenses charged.The Corrections Services Office received 

### Ricks' s request to proceed to Step Two on June 23, 2022. The " 

### Second Step Response Form" 

### indicated that Ricky's request was adequately addressed atthe first 

### step and his request for reliefwas denied. 

### On July 22, 2022, Ricks filed a petition forjudicial review in the Nineteenth Judicial District Court (" 19" JDC"). Ricks sought review ofthe Department' s final 

### decision under the Louisiana Corrections Administrative Remedy Procedure Act CARP"), La. R.S. 15: 1171, et seq. 

### Ricks argued that his custody was illegal 

### because the State ofLouisianawas without anyaffidavit, indictment,or information in its possession showing that Ricks was lawfully charged with any crime under Louisiana law,that he was subjected to " false imprisonment," and that he should be 

### released from custody. Ricks demanded thatthe district court grant awrit ofhabeas corpus, review the State of Louisiana's evidence, permit Ricks to testify on the 

### record, and order Ricks' s release from custody. On August 8, 2022, the district court issued a mandamus service order, which ordered the Department to file a response to Ricks' s mandamus request. Thereafter, 

### the Department filed an answer, which generally denied Ricks' s allegations and

3requested that Ricks' s writ ofmandamus to be dismissed.' The Department also filed

the administrative record ofARP No. LSP - 2022-0795 into the district court record 

### On February 9, 2023, 

### the commissioner of the district court3 issued its recommendation to dismiss Ricks' s petition forjudicial review, with prejudice, at 

### Ricks' s costs. The commissioner found that the district court had no authority or 

### jurisdiction to overturn orvacate apresumably valid sentence imposed bya criminal sentencing court. After a de novo review of the entire record, together with any traversal timely filed, the district court adopted the recommendation of the commissioner and dismissed Ricks' s petition forjudicial review, with prejudice, at 

### Ricks' s costs. The judgment was signed by the district court on March 21, 2023. Ricks appealed. In his assignment oferror, Ricks contends thatthe bill ofindictment 

### filed on January 24, 2013, along with his convictions and sentences resulting from the indictment, are null andvoid because the offenses ofaggravated rape and cruelty 

### tojuveniles may not bejoined underthe Louisiana Code ofCriminal Procedure.

I The caption of Ricks' s petition forjudicial review states that the defendants are the State of Louisiana, the Louisiana Department of Justice, and the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals/Vital Records. Within the petition for judicial review, Ricks listed John Bel Edwards, Governor of the State of Louisiana, and Jeffrey Landry, Attorney General for the State of Louisiana, as defendants. However, La. R.S. 15: 1177(A)(1)( b) provides, in part, that the only 

### properparty defendant is the Department ofPublic Safety and Corrections when seekingjudicial review ofan administrative decision,excluding decisions relative to delictual actions for injury or damages, rendered pursuant to any administrative remedy procedures under this Part. Therefore, 

### the Louisiana DepartmentofPublic Safety and Corrections isthe correct defendant inthis case. 

### 2 Ricks made various filings into the 19th JDC record, including a motionto suppress, two motions for relieffrom thejudgment,two motions for in camera inspection, two petitions for writ of habeas corpus, a motion for appointment of counsel, a motion to subpoena, three motions to compel discovery,a motion to alteroramend thejudgment,two motionsforspeedytrial, amotion to transfer, motion for evidentiary hearing and orderto produce, amotion to compel extradition, a special motion forenforcement order, a motion for more definite statement ofanswer, and a motion for writ of certiorari. The district court did not take any action on these filings, and the 

### commissioner noted thatthese filings are more suited for an ordinary suit and not one forjudicial review because the district court in its appellate review capacity does not subpoena witnesses or entertain evidence not contained in the administrative record. 3 The office ofthe commissioner ofthe 19th JDC was created by La. R.S. 13: 711 to hear and recommend disposition of criminal and civil proceedings arising out ofthe incarceration of state prisoners. The commissioner' s written findings and recommendations are submitted to a 

### districtjudge, who may accept, reject,or modify them. Hakim-El-Mumit v. Stalder,2003-2549 La.App. 1" Cir. 10129104), 897 So. 2d 112, 113 n. 1.
4LAW AND DISCUSSION Louisiana Revised Statutes 15: 1177 provides forjudicial review ofan adverse 

### final administrative decision bythe Department. Section 1171( B) grants authorityto 

### the Department and to each sheriff to adopt administrative remedy procedures in compliance with federal law to receive, hear, and dispose of all offender complaints and grievances. Louisiana Revised Statutes 15: 1171( B) furtherprovides, in pertinent
part: 

### Such complaints and grievances include but are not limited to any and 

### all claims seeking monetary, injunctive, declaratory, orany other form ofrelief authorized by law and by way of illustration includes actions pertaining to conditions of confinement, personal injuries, medical malpractice, time computations, even though urged as a writ ofhabeas corpus, or challenges to rules, regulations, policies, or statutes. Such administrative procedures, when promulgated, shall provide the 

### exclusive remedy availabletothe offender forcomplaints orgrievances 

### governed thereby insofaras federal law allows. On review of the Department' s decision, the district court functions as an appellate court. Its review shall be confined to the record and shall be limited to the 

### issues presented in the petition for review and the administrative remedy request 

### filed at the agency level. La. R.S. 15: 1177(A)(5); Gilmer v. Louisiana Dept. of 

### Public Safety & Corrections, 2015-0134 (La.App. I" Cir. 9/ 18/ 15), 181 So. 3d 746, 

### 748. The court may affirm the decision ofthe agency, remand the case for further proceedings, or orderthat additional evidence be taken. La. R.S. 15: 1177(A)(8). The 

## court may reverse ormodifythe administrative decision only ifsubstantial rights of the appellant have been prejudiced because the administrative findings, inferences,

conclusions, or decisions are: ( 1) 

### in violation of constitutional or statutory
provisions; ( 2) 

### in excess of the statutory authority of the agency; ( 3) made upon
unlawful procedure; (

### 4) affected by other error oflaw; (5) arbitrary or capricious or 

### characterized by abuse ofdiscretion or clearly unwarranted exercise ofdiscretion;
or ( b) 

### manifestly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record. La. R.S. 15: 1177(A)(9).

IOn review of the district court' s judgment under La. R.S. 15: 1177, no



### deference is owed bythe court ofappeal to the factual findings or legal conclusions 

### ofthe district court,justas no deference is owed bythe Louisiana Supreme Courtto factual findings or legal conclusions of the court of appeal. Englade v. Louisiana 

### Department ofCorrections, 2021- 0132 (La.App. l5t Cir. 12/30/21), 340 So. 3d 952, 957, writ denied, 2022-00209 (La. 4/ 12/22), 336 So. 3d 82. Ricks' s ARP complaint alleged that the State did not have an indictment 

### legally charging him with five counts ofaggravated rape and four counts ofcruelty to juveniles.' 

### On appeal, Ricks specifically contends thatthe offenses ofaggravated 

### rape and cruelty tojuveniles were improperlyjoined, so the indictment,along with the convictions and sentences, are null and void. Ricks seeks to be released from 

### custody due to the alleged error. Based on our review of the record, we find no error in the district court' s dismissal of Ricks' s petition for judicial review. Regardless of whether Ricks' s 

### claims concerning the legality ofhis indictment, convictions, and sentences have merit, the 19th JDC lacked jurisdiction to grant Ricks the relief he sought. An 

### objection to a misjoinder ofoffenses may be urged only bythe filing ofa motion to quash the indictment before commencement of the trial, not through an ARP 

### complaint. See La. C.Cr.P. arts. 495 and 535. Additionally, Ricks is attempting to utilize the ARP to attack his convictions and the sentences imposed by the 41h JDC. 

### However, it is well settledthatprisoners may not use civil proceedings to collaterally attack previous criminal convictions. Straughter v. Louisiana Department of Public Safety & 

### Corrections, 2017-0384 (La.App. 1St Cir. 1111117), 233 So. 3d 89, 91, writ denied, 2018-0187 ( La. 2/ 11/ 19), 263 So. 3d 893. Further, while an illegal sentence

We note that in his ARP complaint, Ricks concluded that there was an error in his time computation. Ricks stated, "Wherefore,the Administrative Remedy Procedure as there is an error 

### in Wesley S. Ricks, 499599 time computation by abuse of process." While challenges to time computations must be pursued through CARP, Ricks did not further assert any time computation error in his petition forjudicial review or in this appeal. See La. R.S. 15: 1171( B).

in,

### may be corrected at any time, only the sentencing court itselforthe appellate court



## havingjurisdiction overthe sentencing court have authority to do so.5 La. C.Cr.P. art. 882(A); Stapleton v. Louisiana Dept. ofPublic Safety & Corrections, 2014-0633 

### La. App. 1St Cir. 1117114), 2014 WL 5800569, * 3 ( unpublished). Since Ricks was convicted and sentenced in the 4th JDC, neither the 19th JDC nor this court have jurisdiction over Ricks' s claims. See Campbell v. Louisiana Department of Public 

### Safety and Corrections, 2017- 1002 (La.App. 1St Cir.2/ 16/ 18), 2018 WL 914304, * 1
unpublished), writ denied, 2018- 0359 (La. 1/ 28/ 19), 262 So. 3d 900. Therefore, the 

### district court did not err in dismissing Ricks's petition for judicial review. This assignment oferror is without merit. CONCLUSION For these reasons, the March 21, 

### 2023 judgment by the Nineteenth Judicial 

### District Court dismissing Wesley Sinclair Ricks' s petition forjudicial review, with
prejudice, 

### at Wesley Sinclair Ricks' s cost, is affirmed. Costs of this appeal are 

## assessedagainst Wesley Sinclair Ricks.6 AFFIRMED.



### 5 A district court lacks authority to correct an illegal sentence on a petition forjudicial review. Bodd e v. LA. Dept. of Corrections, 2014- 1836 ( La. App. I" Cir. 6126115), 175 So. 3d 437, 442, writ denied, 2015- 1688 ( La. 10130115), 180 So. 3d 303. 6 Although Ricks filed his petition forjudicial review informapAuperis, because he was 

### unsuccessful in obtaining the relief sought, costs may be assessed against him. Taplette v. Louisiana Department of Public Safety & Corrections, 2020-0818 (La.App. l' Cir.2122/21), 321 So. 3d 425, 430, n.9.
7