Michael L. Glass v. City of Oberlin

Opinion

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

12-414

MICHAEL L. GLASS

VERSUS

CITY OF OBERLIN

**********

APPEAL FROM THE THIRTY-THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF ALLEN, NO. C-2011-198 HONORABLE PATRICIA C. COLE, DISTRICT JUDGE

JOHN D. SAUNDERS JUDGE

Court composed of John D. Saunders, Marc T. Amy, and J. David Painter, Judges.

AFFIRMED.

Errol David Deshotels Deshotels, Mouser & Deshotels P. O. Box 399 Oberlin, LA 70655-0399 (337) 639-4309 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT APPELLEE: City of Oberlin Wilbert Joseph Saucier, Jr. Attorney at Law 2220 Shreveport Highway Pineville, LA 71360 (318) 473-4146 COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF APPELLANT: Michael L. Glass SAUNDERS, J.

This is an appeal of a dismissal for no cause of action involving a criminal

appeal brought as a civil action.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY:

On April 21, 2011, Plaintiff-Appellant Michael L. Glass was found guilty of

a speeding citation in Oberlin’s Mayor’s Court presided over by Oberlin’s newly-

elected mayor, Rick Smith. Mr. Glass was fined $130.00 for speeding.

Rather than appealing the criminal conviction and receiving a trial de novo

in the 33rd Judicial District as authorized by La.R.S. 13:1896(A)(1), Appellant

brought a civil suit alleging he was illegally convicted of speeding and named the

town of Oberlin as defendant. He titled his petition in district court as “PETITION

TO QUASH AND VACATE ILLEGAL CONVICTION AND SENTENCE OR

ALTERNATIVELY, FOR APPEAL FROM CONVICTION.”

The town of Oberlin filed an exception of no cause of action, as well as

objections to various interrogatories and requests for document production. The

trial court granted Oberlin’s exception of no cause of action, but failed to dismiss

Plaintiff’s claim or allow amendment of the claim pursuant to La.Code Civ.P. art.

934.

Mr. Glass appealed the trial court’s findings to this court. This court issued

a rule ordering Plaintiff-Appellant to show cause as to why his appeal should not

be dismissed as having been taken from a non-appealable interlocutory order. It

held the trial court’s judgment was not clear and did not constitute a final

appealable judgment. This court, therefore, lacked jurisdiction to review the

matter. Mr. Glass’ appeal was dismissed and remanded to the trial court for

reformation of the judgment. An amended judgment was released by the trial court. The trial court

granted the exception of no cause of action and dismissed the civil suit without

prejudice. The criminal appeal included in the civil suit was transferred to the

criminal docket for the 33rd Judicial District Court, Allen Parish, where subject

matter jurisdiction was appropriate.

Mr. Glass then appealed the granting of the exception of no cause of action

in the civil suit to this court.

ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR:

On appeal, Mr. Glass sets forth the following assignment of error:

1. The trial court erred by dismissing Appellant’s petition seeking redress from

the illegal conviction in mayor’s court.

LAW AND ANALYSIS:

In naming the town of Oberlin as defendant, and alleging a violation of due

process, it appeared as though Appellant brought a civil suit. However, the

petition was titled as though it were an appeal from the criminal proceeding as it

referenced quashing and vacating the illegal conviction or, alternatively, appealing

from the conviction.

The proper procedure for an appeal from Mr. Glass’ criminal conviction in

mayor’s court would be a trial de novo in district court. District courts have

appellate jurisdiction over all appeals from a mayor’s court where a person has

been subjected to imprisonment or a forfeiture of rights or property. La.R.S.

13:1896(A)(1). Appellant’s issues of due process and illegal conviction could be

brought in said trial de novo.

Appellant brought a civil action against the town of Oberlin dealing with the

criminal conviction, rather than following the correct procedural avenues laid out

2 for his criminal conviction appeal. Appellant improperly filed a civil rather than

bringing an appeal to criminal court. The motion to quash and issues of due

process would be heard at that time in that court.

Correct procedure is to be followed, as otherwise, whenever an unfavorable

result is found that a would-be appellant dislikes, he/she would bring a civil suit

against that court instead. Criminal procedural protocol exists to catch errors to

avoid civil suits such as this. We find that the case before us is a criminal matter

because it involves the prosecution of a criminal offense. As such, the roadmap

laid out in La.R.S. 13:1896(A)(1) and the Code of Criminal Procedure must be

adhered to.

CONCLUSION:

The trial court’s dismissal for no cause of action is affirmed.

Costs of this appeal are assessed to Michael L. Glass.

This opinion is NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. Uniform Rules–

Courts of Appeal, Rule 2–16.3.