Monceaux v. Vannoy

Filing 17

ORDER granting 16 Motion for Reconsideration re 15 Order on Motion to Stay. The Motion for Reconsideration [doc. 16] is GRANTED and upon reconsideration, the Motion to Hold in Abeyance [doc. 14] remains DENIED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kathleen Kay on 6/20/2016. (crt,Haik, K)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
LAKE CHARLES DIVISION

WILCY ERNEST MONCEAUX, SR.
D.O.C. # 593048

:

DOCKET NO. 15-cv-2139

VERSUS

:

JUDGE TRIMBLE

DARREL VANNOY

:

MAGISTRATE JUDGE KAY

MEMORANDUM ORDER

Before the court is Motion for Reconsideration [doc. 16] filed by Wilcy Ernest Monceaux,
Sr. (“petitioner”) in response to our denial [doc. 15] of his Motion to Hold in Abeyance [doc. 14].
For reasons stated below, the Motion for Reconsideration [doc. 16] is GRANTED and upon
reconsideration, the Motion to Hold in Abeyance [doc. 14] remains DENIED.
The petitioner requested that his petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254 be held in abeyance while he waits for the Louisiana Supreme Court to rule on his claim
that conviction of attempted manslaughter and false imprisonment with a dangerous weapon
placed him in double jeopardy. Doc. 14, see doc. 16, att. 1 (pending state court Motion to Correct
an Illegal Sentence). We denied the motion because petitioner failed to show 1) cause for his failure
to exhaust that claim in state court before filing here and 2) that the unexhausted claim was not
plainly meritless. Doc. 15; see Rhines v. Weber, 125 S.Ct. 1528, 1533–35 (2005).
In his Motion for Reconsideration, petitioner states that he was represented by counsel on
his application for PCR. Doc. 16; see doc. 1, att. 4, p. 42. He thus alleges that his attorney's failure
to raise the unexhausted double jeopardy claim, forcing the petitioner to raise it in his own
-1-

application, is cause for filing the instant habeas petition before the double jeopardy claim was
unexhausted. Accordingly, we grant the Motion for Reconsideration in light of the petitioner’s
new assertion.
Even if we accept the petitioner’s attorney’s actions as adequate cause, the unexhausted
claim still falls into the “plainly meritless” category described in Rhines. Federal courts determine
double jeopardy claims like the one raised here using the Blockburger test, which states that the
two offenses must each require proof of an additional element which the other does not.
Blockburger v. United States, 52 S.Ct. 180, 182 (1932). Based on a comparison of the relevant
statutes, LA. REV. STAT. §§ 14:31 & 14:27 (attempted manslaughter) and LA. REV. STAT. § 14:46.1
(false imprisonment with a dangerous weapon), and a review of the petitioner’s pleadings and the
factual basis for his conviction, he has not shown that the conviction fails the Blockburger test.
Therefore, upon reconsideration, there is no change to our original ruling and the Motion for
Abeyance remains denied.
THUS DONE this 20th day of June, 2016.

-2-