Background
Russell Housely sought supervisory review concerning his request for criminal case records from the St. Helena Parish Clerk of Court in his case in the 21st Judicial District Court.
The clerk’s records showed that the district court acted on December 5, 2025, on Housely’s request for copies of the bill of information and criminal court minutes. The guilty-plea transcript was processed on January 12, 2026, but the record did not show that it had been forwarded to Housely.
The Court’s Holding
The First Circuit granted the writ in part and denied it in part. It held that, because the record did not establish that the guilty-plea transcript had been sent to Housely, relief was warranted as to that transcript.
The court ordered the St. Helena Parish Clerk’s Office to forward Housely a copy of the guilty-plea transcript by September 1, 2026, if it had not already done so. The court denied the writ to the extent it sought further relief.
Key Takeaways
- The record showed action on Housely’s requests for the bill of information and criminal minutes.
- Processing a transcript did not establish that it was sent to the requesting defendant.
- The clerk was ordered to send the guilty-plea transcript by September 1, 2026, unless it had already been provided.
Why It Matters
The ruling underscores that a court record showing a document was processed does not resolve whether the document was actually delivered. In supervisory-writ proceedings, the appellate court may direct a clerk to provide a missing criminal-case record while denying relief on other aspects of the request.