Appealed from the 19th Judicial District Court In
and for the Parish of East Baton Rouge, Louisiana Docket
Number C658575 | Section 23 Honorable William A. Morvant,
Gregory Cook Attorney for Appellant Defendant - Harrison
Shavondara Shaketa Scott Appellee Plaintiff- Pro Se
BEFORE: McCLENDON, WELCH, AND THERIOT, JJ.
defendant, Harrison Edmond Hogan, appeals the trial
court's grant of a protective order against him pursuant
to the Protection for Victims of Sexual Assault Act, La. R.S.
46:2181, et seq., filed by the plaintiff, Shavondara
Shaketa Scott. For the following reasons, we recall and
vacate the protective order and remand the matter to the
trial court for further proceedings consistent with this
initiated this suit on June 8, 2017, by filing a verified
petition for protection from stalking or sexual assault,
pursuant to La. R.S. 46:2171, et seq. (Protection
from Stalking Act) or La. R.S. 46:2181, et seq.
(Protection for Victims of Sexual Assault Act). Therein,
Plaintiff sought a protective order for herself against her
ex-coworker, the defendant. In her petition, Plaintiff
alleged that Defendant harassed, stalked, harmed or
threatened to harm her, was an uninvited presence at her
workplace, and had mail sent to her residence, addressed to
himself. During all material times, Plaintiff was the
Community Team Manager at Midcity Gardens on North Boulevard
for Latter and Blum Property Management. Plaintiff alleged
that Defendant was fired by their mutual employer in the
early part of 2017, and Plaintiff became concerned that
Defendant blamed her for his termination. Defendant was
escorted off the premises and instructed not to return.
However, she claimed that Defendant continued to drive by and
trespass on the property on multiple occasions. Plaintiff
further alleged that Defendant had mail sent to her residence
by a third party that was addressed to him, which caused her
to feel threatened and fear for her safety, since this
presumably meant that Defendant knew where she lived. As a
result, a temporary restraining order ("TRO") was
issued by the trial court on June 8, 2017, pursuant to
"La. R.S. 46:2181 et seq. (Non-intimate sexual
assault)," with a show-cause hearing scheduled for June
28, 2017, to determine whether a protective order should be
issued. Defendant was served with the TRO on June 15, 2017.
Defendant did not file any opposition to Plaintiffs petition
protective order hearing occurred on June 28, 2017, before
the trial court. The minute entry and transcript from the
hearing reflect that Defendant was not present in the
courtroom when the docket was called at 9:30 a.m. The trial
court stated: "he's been served and is aware of
this. If he does not show up, it is my intention simply to go
forward without him." The trial court instructed court
personnel to call for Defendant out in the hall; however, no
one responded. The trial court then began the hearing.
testified at the hearing. Following the hearing, the trial
court signed the order of protection pursuant to the
Protection for Victims of Sexual Assault Act, "La. R.S.
46:2181 et seq. (Non-intimate sexual assault)." The
protective order, made effective through June 28, 2018
(including some provisions that do not expire), prohibited
• abusing, harassing, assaulting, stalking, following,
tracking, monitoring, or threatening Plaintiff in any manner
• contacting Plaintiff or any of her family members or
acquaintances personally, electronically, by phone, in
writing, through a third party, or via public posting,
without the express written permission of the trial court;
• going within 100 yards of Plaintiff s person or
• going to or interfering with Plaintiffs place or
employment in any manner whatsoever; and,
• damaging or interfering with any belongings or
property of Plaintiff, including shutting off any utilities,
telephone service, or mail delivery.
the hearing concluded at 9:45 a.m. The minute entry reflects
that Defendant then appeared in court at 9:50 a.m., after the
hearing was concluded and after the trial court judge had
left the bench. The parties were served in open court with a
copy of the protective order.
11, 2017, Defendant filed a motion for new trial from the
protective order granted against him on June 28, 2017,
which the trial court denied as untimely pursuant to La.
C.C.P. art. 1974. On August 2, 2017, Defendant filed a
motion to modify or dissolve Plaintiffs protective order,
which the trial court also denied. Defendant now devolutively
appeals the protective order granted on June 28, 2017.
TO SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD
has filed a "motion for leave to attach exhibits,"
which may be treated as a motion to supplement the appeal
record. It is well-settled Louisiana law that
"[e]very pleading shall be construed as to do
substantial justice." La. C.C.P. art. 865.
seeks to supplement the appellate record with three
"exhibits": (1) a photocopy of the mail received by
Plaintiff at her residence that was addressed to Defendant;
(2) a copy of the Baton Rouge Police Department
("BRPD") Incident Report Number 17-00036527-000
dated April 10, 2017 (which notes that the officer could not
locate a prior report where Defendant was banned from the
premises at issue); and, (3) a printed-out docket report from
the East Baton Rouge Parish Clerk of Court's Office
website for Docket Number C658575, which shows that the
minute entry from the June 28, 2017 hearing was amended to
indicate that court started at 9:30 a.m., not 9:00 a.m., as
set forth in the original minute entry.
appellate court, we have no jurisdiction to review evidence
that is not in the record on appeal, and we cannot receive
new evidence. Niemann v. Crosby Dev. Co., 2011-1337
(La.App. 1st Cir. 5/3/12), 92 So.3d 1039, 1044. An
appellate court must render its judgment upon the record on
appeal, i.e., that which is sent by the lower court
to the appellate court and includes the pleadings, court
minutes, transcripts, jury instructions (if applicable),
judgments, and other rulings, unless otherwise designated.
See La. C.C.P. arts. 2164 and 2127-2128. The trial court has
jurisdiction to correct an omission from the trial record on
appeal. An appellate court can neither supplement the record
nor consider documents on appeal that were ...