Quatrevingt v. State
242 So. 3d 625
La. Ct. App.2018Background
- Appellant Kevin Quatrevingt pled guilty in military court (Jan. 24, 2006) to conduct under UCMJ Article 134 based on possession of child pornography, served ~9 months, and was notified he must register as a sex offender.
- On returning to Louisiana (Oct. 21, 2006) the Bureau of Criminal Identification (Bureau/DPSC) classified him as a Tier I offender; in April 2010 the Bureau reclassified his military conviction as comparable to La. R.S. 14:81.1 and designated him Tier II (25-year registration, 6-month in-person renewals), posting that determination April 22, 2010.
- Quatrevingt did not seek the one-year administrative appeal provided by La. R.S. 15:542.1.3(B)(4). He had two prosecutions for failure to register (2008 conviction for 11/2006–5/2007 failure; 2010 arrest for 5/17/2010–6/14/2010), and in Feb. 2014 the 22nd JDC granted a motion to quash the 2010 criminal charge, concluding his military plea was to a general Article 134 offense, not a specific Louisiana sex offense.
- After the criminal court declined to order Registry removal, Quatrevingt filed a mandamus/declaratory/injunctive civil action in 19th JDC (Jan. 2017) seeking removal from the Registry and to enjoin further registration/enforcement; DPSC intervened and raised exceptions including peremption.
- The 19th JDC granted DPSC’s peremptory exception of peremption and dismissed the suit with prejudice (Apr./May 2017). Quatrevingt appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Whether Quatrevingt can challenge the Bureau’s April 22, 2010 classification after one year | Quatrevingt: La. R.S. 15:544.1 permits injunctive/declaratory relief without peremptive time bar; 22nd JDC ruling shows no duty to register so Bureau must remove him | DPSC: Administrative-appeal deadline (one year) under La. R.S. 15:542.1.3(B)(4) is peremptive; Quatrevingt failed to timely appeal, so right to challenge is extinguished | Held: Peremption barred the challenge; Quatrevingt’s right to appeal the Bureau’s determination expired and suit dismissed |
| 2) Whether the 19th JDC had original jurisdiction to hear Quatrevingt’s claims (or should have treated it as administrative appeal) | Quatrevingt: Action is mandamus/writ under La. R.S. 15:544.1 and not time-barred; court should enforce 22nd JDC criminal ruling | DPSC: The statutory administrative-judicial review scheme (La. R.S. 15:542.1.3 and La. R.S. 49:964) required administrative appeal and judicial review in 19th JDC as appellate review; Quatrevingt’s petition sought enforcement of criminal ruling and the court acted in original jurisdiction | Held: 19th JDC acted in original jurisdiction and properly applied peremption; La. R.S. 15:544.1 does not revive an extinguished administrative appeal right |
| 3) Whether res judicata or collateral estoppel from the 22nd JDC criminal ruling requires DPSC to remove Quatrevingt from the Registry | Quatrevingt: 22nd JDC quashed criminal charge; state didn’t appeal; that judgment precludes further enforcement and requires Registry removal | DPSC: Criminal case was between Quatrevingt and the district attorney (criminal sanction); the Registry determination is a separate civil administrative action by DPSC — different parties, different thing demanded | Held: Res judicata and collateral estoppel do not apply; parties and remedies differ, so prior criminal judgment does not bind DPSC |
| 4) Whether mandamus or double jeopardy/collateral estoppel require removal from Registry | Quatrevingt: Mandamus should compel removal; double jeopardy/collateral estoppel bar continued registration/enforcement | DPSC: Registration/notification is a civil regulatory scheme distinct from criminal prosecutions; double jeopardy and collateral estoppel inapplicable to separate administrative classification and civil enforcement | Held: Writ of mandamus not warranted; double jeopardy/collateral estoppel do not prevent DPSC from maintaining classification or civil enforcement mechanisms |
Key Cases Cited
- State Through Div. of Admin. v. McInnis Bros. Const., 701 So.2d 937 (La. 1997) (peremption extinguishes cause of action when statutory period lapses)
- Metro Riverboat Associates, Inc. v. Louisiana Gaming Control Bd., 797 So.2d 656 (La. 2001) (district court appellate/original jurisdiction distinction for administrative review)
- Adams v. State, Dep't of Health & Human Res., 458 So.2d 1295 (La. 1984) (criminal judgment does not necessarily bar civil enforcement where the thing demanded differs)
- Borel v. Young, 989 So.2d 42 (La. 2007) (peremptive statutes extinguish substantive rights; contra non valentem not applicable)
- Jackson v. Myer, 52 So.3d 271 (La. App. 1 Cir.) (peremption results in loss of cause of action after statutory period)
- Lomont v. Bennett, 172 So.3d 620 (La. 2015) (standard of review for factual findings when exceptions with evidence are heard)
- Carter v. Haygood, 892 So.2d 1261 (La. 2004) (burden of proof on exceptor for peremptory exceptions)
- Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1970) (collateral estoppel/issue preclusion principles)