Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Darval Ledet, Petitioner v. Keith Cooley, Warden

25“5760

IN THE

Supreme Court of the United States

DARVAL LEDET,

Pef/foneP RIG! N AL

I

ULIUUI 1^1 ,

filed

JUL 07 2025

v.

STATE OF LOUISIANA,

Respondents.

ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS, FIFTH CIRCUIT

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

DARVAL LEDET, N°. 334730

PROSE

ALLEN CORRECTIONAL CENTER

3751 LAUDERDALE WOODYARD RD.

KINDER, LA 70648

QUESTION PRESENTED

Whether Ledet made a substantial showing of denial of a constitutional right under MillerEl v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 327 (2003), such that reasonable jurists would find the district

court's assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel,

529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).

PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDINGS BELOW

All parties appear in the caption of the case on the cover page.

ii

LIST OF PROCEEDINGS

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

N°. 24-30715

Darval Ledet v.

Keith Cooley, Warden, Allen Correctional Center

Date of Final Opinion: April 7, 2025

United States District Court, Eastern District Louisiana

N°. 23-7270

Darval Ledet v.

Keith Cooley, Warden

Date of Final Opinion: October 4, 2024

United States District Court, Eastern District Louisiana

N°. 23-7270

Darval Ledet v.

Keith Cooley, Warden

Date of Report and Recommendation: June 10, 2024

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

QUESTION PRESENTED................................................................................................. i

PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDINGS BELOW.................................................................... ii

LIST OF PROCEEDINGS.............................................................................................. . iii

APPENDIX TABLE OF CONTENTS................................................................................. v

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES....................................................... ....................................... vii

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI.......................................................................... 1

OPINIONS BELOW.......................................................................................................... 1

JURISDICTION................................................................................................................. 3

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED................................. 4

STATEMENT OF THE CASE............................................................................................ 5

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION................................................................. 7

A. Ledet's right to the effective assistance of counsel under the U.S. Constitution

Amendment VI was denied............................................................................................ 8

B. The Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit failed to consider Ledet's argument concerning

the lack of a preliminary exam violating his Confrontation Clause rights despite this

Honorable Court's position on a similar issue.............................................................. 11

1. Ledet's failure to explicitly mention the Confrontation Clause was due to being

unskilled in the art of pleading, which this Honorable Court has stated should be

looked upon less stringently............................................................................. 13

CONCLUSION................................................................................................................. 14

PROOF OF SERVICE.................................................................................................... 15

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS - CONTINUED

APPENDIX TABLE OF CONTENTS

Opinion of the United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

(April 7, 2025).................................................................................................................1a

Opinion of the United States District Court, Eastern District Louisiana

(October 4, 2024)........................................................................................................... 2a

Report and Recommendation of the United States District Court, Eastern District

Louisiana

(June 10, 2024)..............................................................................................................12a

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

CASES:

Barefoot v. Estelle,

463 U.S. 880, 893, and n.4, 103 S.Ct. 3383, 77 L.Ed.2d 1090 (1983)........... 7

Bell v. Cone,

535 U.S. 685, 122 S.Ct. 1843, 152 L.Ed.2d 914 (2002)................................................ 12

Black v. Davis,

902 F.3d 541, 545 (5th Cir. 2018)................................................................................... 11

Bullcoming v. New Mexico,

564 U.S. 647, 131 S.Ct. 2705, 2707, 180 L.Ed.2d 610 (2011)

California v. Green,

399 U.S. 149, 158, 90 S.Ct. 1930, 1935, 26 L.Ed.2d 489 (1970)...............

11, 12, 14

14

Crawford v. Washington,

541 U.S. 36, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004).................................................. 12

Foster v. Lockhart^

9 F.3d 722, 726 (8th Cir. 1993)......................................................................................... 8

Haines v. Kerner,

404 U.S. 519, 520, 92 S.Ct. 594, 596, 30 L.Ed. 652 (1972) (per curiam)...................... 13

Hill v. Lockhart,

477 U.S. 52 (1985)........................................................................................................... 8

Hughes v. Rowe,

449 U.S. 5, 9, 101 S.Ct. 173, 176, 66 L.Ed.2d 163 (1980)............................................ 13

Jones v. Wood,

114 F.3d 1002 (9th Cir. 1997)............................................................................................ 8

Kimmelman v. Morrison,

477 U.S. 365, 383-87, 106 S.Ct. 2574, 91 L.Ed.2d 305 (1986)..................................... 10

McCleskey v. Zant,

499 U.S. 467, 111 S.Ct. 1454, 113 L.Ed.2d 517 (1991)................................................. 13

McMann v. Richardson,

397 U.S. 759, n. 14 (1970)................................................................................................ 8

vi

Miller-El v. Cockrell,

537 U.S. 322, 327, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 1034, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003)............................. i, 7

Price v. Johnston,

334 U.S. 266, 292, 68 S.Ct. 1049, 1063, 92. L.Ed. 1356 (1948).................................... 13

Sanders v. Ratelle,

21 F.3d 1446, 1456 (9th Cir, 1994)................................................................................... 8

Slack v. McDaniel,

529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 1603-04, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000)....................... i, 7

Strickland v. Washington,

466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).......................................... 6, 8, 11

United States v. Barbour,

813 F.2d 1232, 1234 (D.C. 1987)...................................................................................... 8

STATUTES AND OTHER AUTHORITIES:

U.S. Constitution Amendment VI...................................................................................... 4

U.S. Constitution Amendment XIV.................................................................................... 4

28 U.S.C. § 455(a)............................................................................................................ 9

JUDICIAL RULES:

Sup. Ct .R. 12.7.............................................................................................................. 12

vii

IN THE

Supreme Court of the United States

DARVAL LEDET,

Petitioner,

v.

KEITH COOLEY, WARDEN,

ALLEN CORRECTIONAL CENTER,

Respondents.

ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS, FIFTH CIRCUIT

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

OPINIONS BELOW

The opinion of the United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, dated April 7,2025,

is included in the appendix at App.la. The opinion is reported at Ledet v. Cooley, 2025

WL 1369365, (5th Cir. 4/7/2025). The ruling of the United States District Court, Eastern

District Louisiana, dated October 4, 2024, is included below at App.2a. The opinion is

reported at Ledet v. Cooley, Slip Copy, 2024 WL 4404096 (E.D.L.A. 10/4/2024). The

report and recommendation of the United States District Court, Eastern District Louisiana,

1

dated June 10, 2024, is included below at App.13a. The recommendation is reported at

Ledet v. Cooley, Unpublished, 2024 WL 4720275 (E.D.L.A. 6/10/2024).

2

JURISDICTION

The judgment of the United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit was entered on

April 7, 2025. App.la. The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U.S.C. § 1254(1).

3

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED

Amendment VI, of the U.S. Constitution (Rights of the accused) states that:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public

trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been

committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be

informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses

against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to

have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

Amendment XIV, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution (Citizens of the United States) states

that:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction

thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State

shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of

citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or

property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the

equal protection of the laws.

4

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Darval Ledet, on September 12, 2019, pled guilty in the 24th Judicial District Court

of Louisiana, Division “F” to attempted armed robbery with a firearm (count one) a

violation of La. R.S. 14:27/14:64/3; attempted second degree murder (count two) a

violation of La. R.S.14:27/14:30.1; attempted armed robbery with a firearm (count three)

a violation of La. R.S.14:27/14:64.3; and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon

(count five) a violation of La. R.S.14:95.1. In connection with a negotiated plea

agreement, the State amended the bill of information to enter a nolle prosequi on a charge

of attempted second degree murder (count four). Ledet’s convictions and sentences were

affirmed by the Louisiana Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit on January 27, 2021. Ledet did

not seek supervisory review.

Ledet filed his Application for Post-Conviction Relief (APCR) with the Louisiana

district court on April 15, 2021, challenging his convictions claiming ineffective assistance

of counsel. In Ledet’s APCR, he argued he was denied effective assistance of counsel in

connection with his guilty plea. The district court ordered the state to file a response to

address Ledet’s claims, and on November 29, 2021, the state filed its response, arguing

that Ledet’s allegations of counsel’s ineffective assistance were unsupported by the

record. On December 6, 2021, the district court denied relief.

Ledet, on December 28, 2021, filed with the district court a notice of intent to seek

supervisory writ of review. Ledet timely filed on Application for Supervisory Writ of Review

on January 27, 2022, which was denied by the Louisiana Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit on

February 15, 2022. Ledet, by permission of the court, filed a Writ of Certiorari or Review

to the Supreme Court of Louisiana on April 3, 2022. The Supreme Court of Louisiana

5

denied Ledet’s Supervisory Writ stating that Ledet failed to show that he was denied the

effective assistance of counsel during plea negotiations under the standard of Strickland

v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).

Ledet filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus to the

United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana (which was eventually

transferred to the Eastern District due to Ledet's case originating out of the 24th Judicial

District). The District Court recommended that Ledet's application be dismissed with

prejudice on June 10, 2024. App.13a. That recommendation was adopted on October 4,

2024, with the District Court also denying a certificate of appealability. App.2a. The United

States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, denied the motion for certificate of appealability with

reasons on April 7, 2025. App.la

6

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION

This Honorable Court should grant this petition for writ of certiorari because it is

well established law by this Honorable Court that a prisoner seeking a certificate of

appealability (COA) need only demonstrate a substantial showing of a denial of a

constitutional right. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 327, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 1034, 154

L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). Ledet satisfies this standard by demonstrating that jurists of reason

could disagree with the federal district court's resolution of the constitutional right to the

effective assistance of counsel, the petition should have been resolved in a different

manner, or that jurists could conclude the issues presented are adequate to deserve

encouragement to proceed further. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,484, 120 S.Ct. 1595,

1603-04, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000) (citing Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893, and n.4,

103 S.Ct. 3383, 77 L.Ed.2d 1090 (1983)). "A COA does not require a showing that the

appeal will succeed. Accordingly, a court of appeals should not decline the application for

a COA merely because it believes the applicant will not demonstrate an entitlement to

relief." Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. at 337, 123 S.Ct. at 1039. After all, when a COA is

sought, the whole premise is that the prisoner has already failed in that endeavor. Id.

(internal citations and quotations omitted). AEDPA does not require petitioner to prove

that a decision is objectively unreasonable by clear and convincing evidence. ... A COA

determination is a separate proceeding, one distinct from the underlying merits. Miller-El

v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. at 342, 123 S.Ct. at 1042.

7

A. Ledet's right to the effective assistance of counsel under the U.S.

Constitution Amendment VI was denied.

The Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right to the effective

assistance of counsel. U.S. Const. Amend. VI; McMann v. Richardson, 397 U.S. 759, n.

14 (1970) (6th Amendment right to counsel is the right to effective assistance of counsel);

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 669, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 2055, 80 L.Ed.2d 674

(1984). Strickland also gives the general standard for showing ineffective assistance of

counsel in the guilty plea context. Id., at 668-669. Counsel's performance, thus the record

will show, was unreasonable for a professionally competent attorney. Ledet's trial

counsel's—after a failure to investigate—bad advice induced the guilty plea. The

prejudice showing required for this category of claims was announced by this Honorable

Court in Hill v. Lockhart, 477 U.S. 52 (1985): "The defendant must show that there is a

reasonable probability that, but for counsel's errors, he would not have pleaded guilty and

would have insisted on going to trial." Several federal circuits have stated that ineffective

assistance of counsel can be demonstrated by counsel failing to conduct adequate

pretrial investigation. Jones v. Wood, 114 F.3d 1002 (9th Cir. 1997). "Before an attorney

can make a reasonable strategic choice against pursuing a certain line of investigation,

the attorney must obtain the facts needed to make the decision." Foster v. Lockhart, 9

F.3d 722, 726 (8th Cir. 1993); See also Sanders v. Ratelle, 21 F.3d 1446, 1456 (9th Cir,

1994); United States v. Barbour, 813 F.2d 1232, 1234 (D.C. 1987) (It is especially

important that counsel adequately investigate the case in order that at the very least he

can provide minimally competent professional representation).

8

Ledet throughout State collateral proceedings and federal habeas proceedings set

forth evidence that casted doubt on trial counsel's performance, as well as, the prejudice

that Ledet's case encountered because of counsel's errors as set forth in Strickland's

criteria for ineffective assistance of counsel. Despite this, the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana denied Ledet federal habeas corpus relief with

prejudice stating, "The Court finds no merit in Petitioner's objections [to the Magistrate

Judge's Report and Recommendation], App.2a. This is after the first District Judge for the

Eastern District of Louisiana, Honorable Lance M. Africk, who was allotted the case,

recused himself from further participation in the case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 455(a). One

of the primary issues that counsel failed to investigate was the discrepancies that existed

in the DNA evidence submitted to the crime lab. An adequate investigation would have

revealed that the chain of custody form used at the onset of the case investigation to log

collected evidence by the Gretna Police Department (GPD), identified a DNA sample

taken from the weapon said to have been used in the crime as "Exhibit No. 13; Quantity

1; Swab Box containing 2 cotton swabs from Exh. 11 (DNA)." This specific Exhibit No. 13

was transferred to the Jefferson Parish Sheriff’s Office Crime Laboratory (JPSOCL)

through chain of custody as "Specimen #13 One sealed envelope containing two swabs

from the grip of one Glock model 20, 10mm caliber semiautomatic pistol, SN: NVH596,"

but this "Specimen #13" changed multiple evidence custodians’ hands but never was

received into Jefferson Parish Sheriff’s Office DNA Laboratory (JPSODL) to be compared

to Ledet’s reference DNA profile identified as "Exhibit No. 16" in the GPD chain of custody

and Specimen #16 in the JPSOCL chain of custody. Instead, an egregiously placed

duplicate of Specimen #13 identified as "Item # 011-A" in the JPSOCL chain of custody,

9

which was not logged by GPD chain of custody as being collected at the onset of the case

investigation, was delivered through JPSOCL chain of custody to the JPRDL to be

compared to Ledet’s reference DNA profile, which yielded positive results for the

prosecution.

Further review of the JPSOCL chain of custody and JPSOCL Scientific Analysis

Report, respectively, would have revealed that Firearm and Tool Mark Examiner, Emily

Terrebonne, whose notice of intent to call expert witness says she would be "tendered as

an expert in firearms and tool mark examination and her work with the ballistic evidence

in this case," electronic signature was used to receive into JPSOCL chain of custody for

this case, "Item #011-A" - One sealed envelope containing two swabs from the grip of

one Glock model 20, 10mm caliber semiautomatic pistol, SN: NVH596, from evidence

custodian Beverly Chaisson. But Emily Terrebonne in her JPSOCL Scientific Analysis

Report refute Item #011-A as being "fired cartridge cases.” This discrepancy should have

been challenged by trial counsel through a Motion to Suppress evidence and a Motion for

Preliminary Examination. Neither were done in this case. The lack thereof was not trial

strategy. This Honorable Court has stated, "a failure to file a motion to suppress that is

based on a lack of knowledge of the state of the evidence due to counsel’s

misunderstanding or ignorance of the law or failure to conduct adequate investigations

can satisfy Strickland’s deficiency prong." Kimmelman v. Morrison, 477 U.S. 365, 383-87,

106 S.Ct. 2574, 91 L.Ed.2d 305 (1986). This was first championed by the Strickland court

in stating that, "the Sixth Amendment imposed on counsel a duty to investigate because

reasonable effective assistance must be based on professional decisions and informed

legal choices can be made only after investigation of options, and if there is only one

10

plausible line of defense, the court concluded, counsel must conduct a 'reasonable

substantial investigation' into that line of defense, since there can be no strategic choice

that renders such an investigation unnecessary." Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 680-

81, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).

B. The Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit failed to consider Ledet's argument

concerning the lack of a preliminary exam violating his Confrontation Clause

rights despite this Honorable Court's position on a similar issue.

The Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit stated, "[w]e do not consider Ledet's argument,

raised for the first time in his COA brief, that the lack of a preliminary hearing violated his

Confrontation Clause rights and thereby prejudiced him. See Black v. Davis, 902 F.3d

541, 545 (5th Cir. 2018)." App.la. Ledet's argument has always been that counsel was

ineffective for failing to assure a preliminary examination, which Ledet requested,

depriving him of his right under the Louisiana Constitution and which the Louisiana

Supreme Court deemed mandatory. La Const, of 1974, art. 1 § 14; State v. Jenkins, 388

So.2d 276, 279 (La. 1976); La. Code Crim. P. art. 292. Through the use of the preliminary

examination, Ledet would have been able to challenge Emily Terrebonne, the scientist

and State’s expert in firearms and tool mark examination which would have included her

work with the ballistic evidence in this case. The preliminary examination would have

been the venue where Ledet challenged the discrepancies that littered the chain of

custody and other reports with errors.

This Honorable Court in Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 564 U.S. 647, 131 S.Ct. 2705,

2707, 180 L.Ed.2d 610 (2011), stated that, "the accused's right under the Confrontation

Clause is to be confronted with the analyst who made a testimonial certification for the

purpose of proving a particular fact, unless that analyst is unavailable at trial, and the

11

accused had an opportunity, pretrial, to cross-examine that particular scientist.

(Emphasis added).

This Honorable Court pointed out the fact that Ledet's right to cross-examine Emily

Terrebonne was covered under the Confrontation Clause of the 6th Amendment to the

U.S. Constitution. Ledet just echoed this language in his Motion for Certificate of

Appealability by stating the following:

Counsel's constitutionally ineffective performance by not identifying or

investigating the unfair procedures to admit a testimonial certification

without giving Ledet an opportunity, pretrial, to cross-examine the scientist

who made it, in violation of the Confrontation Clause and decisions set forth

by the United States Supreme Court in Bullcoming v. New Mexico, effected

the outcome of the plea process, and not for counsel's errors, there's a

reasonable probability that Ledet would not have pleaded guilty and would

have insisted on going to trial. Lockhart, 474 U.S. at 59. In Crawford v.

Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004), the

United States Supreme Court said that the Confrontation Clause

"commands, not that evidence be reliable, but that reliability be assessed in

a particular manner: by testing in the crucible of cross-examination." Id., at

61. The facts alleged in Ledet's collateral review proceedings are materially

indistinguishable from United States Supreme Court decisions mentioned

in this filing, yet, the State Court circumventing the issues reached a

decision that was: (1) contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application

of clearly establish federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the

United States, and (2) resulted in a decision that was based on an

unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented

in the State Court proceedings. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1)(2); Bellv. Cone, 535

U.S. 685, 122 S.Ct. 1843, 152 L.Ed.2d 914 (2002).

Ledet's Memorandum in Support of Motion for Certificate of Appealability, p. 6-7.1

Under Black v. Davis, the lack of a ruling on a COA in the district court causes [the

appellate] court to be without jurisdiction to consider the appeal. But, like Black, there is

a district court ruling—the Eastern District denied a COA in general terms. Black, 902 F.3d

at 545. Therefore, [the Fifth Circuit] has no jurisdiction to issue a COA on an issue on

1 See Sup. Ct. R. 12.7

12

which the district court did not deny a COA. Id. Ledet prays that this Honorable Court

finds that the issue was sufficiently argued to the district court and grant certiorari.

1. Ledet's failure to explicitly mention the Confrontation Clause was due to being

unskilled in the art of pleading, which this Honorable Court has stated should be

looked upon less stringently.

This Honorable Court has stated that, "[p]risoners are often unlearned in the law and

unfamiliar with the complicated rules of pleading. Since they act so often as their own

counsel in [ ] proceedings, we cannot impose on them the same high standards of the

legal art which we might place on the members of the legal profession.” See Price v.

Johnston, 334 U.S. 266, 292, 68 S.Ct. 1049, 1063, 92. L.Ed. 1356 (1948), overruled on

other grounds by McCleskey v. Zant, 499 U.S. 467, 111 S.Ct. 1454, 113 L.Ed.2d 517

(1991); See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520, 92 S.Ct. 594, 596, 30 L.Ed. 652 (1972)

(per curiam) (observing that “the allegations of [a] pro se complaint... [are] h[e]ld to less

stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers”); See also Hughes v. Rowe,

449 U.S. 5, 9, 101 S.Ct. 173, 176, 66 L.Ed.2d 163 (1980) (“[p]etitioner’s complaint, like

most prisoner complaints ... was not prepared by counsel. It is settled law that the

allegations of such a complaint however inartfully pleaded are held to less stringent

standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers ....”).

Ledet, as a pro se litigant, did not intentionally not plead a violation of the

Confrontation Clause when arguing counsel's failure to secure a preliminary examination.

Although not using Confrontation Clause explicitly, Ledet knew that the State's case

needed to be tested adversarially and part of that testing was cross-examining the

individuals responsible for the handling and testing of the DNA evidence in this case. This

testing would have been done via a preliminary examination. As noted in the previous

13

section, this Honorable Court used the language of Confrontation Clause concerning

being confronted with the analyst in Bullcoming v. New Mexico. This Honorable Court

has recognized cross-examination as the "greatest legal engine ever invented for the

discovery of truth." California v. Green, 399 U.S. 149, 158, 90 S.Ct. 1930, 1935, 26

L.Ed.2d 489 (1970) (quoting 5 J. Wigmore, Evidence § 1367 (3d. 1940)). Ledet asks that

this Honorable Court not penalize him for not explicitly using the Confrontation Clause

language in the pleading to the District Court but find that the argument was in-fact

presented to the lower court by means of arguing the denial of the right to cross-exam the

individuals responsible for testing, documenting, and potentially presenting the DNA

evidence gathered in this case.

CONCLUSION

For these reasons, the petition for a Writ of Certiorari should be granted.

Respectfully submitted this 1st day of July, 2025.

IaU-, * '334'150

Darval Ledet, N°. 334730

Allen Correctional Center

3751 Lauderdale Woodyard Rd.

Kinder, LA 70648

14