STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT
15-717 REVISED
STATE OF LOUISIANA
VERSUS
DAVID PITTMAN
**********
APPEAL FROM THE SIXTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF IBERIA, NO. 07-2461 HONORABLE GERARD B. WATTIGNY, DISTRICT JUDGE
MARC T. AMY JUDGE
Court composed of Judges Jimmie C. Peters, Marc T. Amy, and Billy H. Ezell.
APPEAL DISMISSED. APPELLANT PERMITTED TO FILE WRIT APPLICATION NO LATER THAN OCTOBER 9, 2015.
James D. “Buddy” Caldwell Attorney General Colin Clark Assistant Attorney General Post Office Box 94005 Baton Rouge, LA 70804 (225) 326-6200 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT: State of Louisiana Seth M. Dornier Attorney at Law 351 Saint Ferdinand Street #B Baton Rouge, LA 7 0802 (225) 389-6664 COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE: David Pittman AMY, Judge.
Upon the lodging of the record in this case, this court issued a rule for the
appellant, the State of Louisiana, to show cause by brief only why the appeal
should not be dismissed as having been taken from a non-appealable, interlocutory
order. The State filed a brief in response to this court’s rule. For the reasons
below, we dismiss the appeal and permit the State thirty days to file an application
for supervisory review with this court.
The appellee, David Pittman, was convicted pursuant to La.R.S. 40:966 for
possession of marijuana with intent to distribute. However, this court reversed the
conviction in State v. Pittman, 11-952 (La.App. 3 Cir. 3/7/12), 85 So.3d 821. The
supreme court denied writs. State v. Pittman, 12-656 (La. 4/11/12), 85 So.3d 1233.
On March 7, 2014, Mr. Pittman filed a petition in the Iberia Parish District
Court invoking its civil jurisdiction and seeking compensation for wrongful
conviction pursuant to La.R.S. 15:572.8. The State responded to the suit by filing
the exceptions of lack of subject matter jurisdiction of the civil district court and no
cause of action. The State contended that Mr. Pittman’s suit could be filed only in
the criminal jurisdiction of that court pursuant to La.R.S. 15:572.8(C) (which
provides in pertinent part that “[a]ll petitions for compensation as provided in this
Section shall be filed in the district court in which the original conviction was
obtained”).
The trial court granted both exceptions. As to the exception challenging the
subject matter jurisdiction of the civil court, the court ordered the transfer of the
petition to the criminal jurisdiction of that same district court. As to the exception
of no cause of action, the trial court granted Mr. Pittman forty-five days within
which to amend his petition to set forth the necessary factual allegations mandated to be included in the petition in order to present a claim based on La.R.S. 15:572.8.
Mr. Pittman filed his amended petition in the criminal docket number on January
12, 2015.
The State then filed a motion seeking the dismissal of Mr. Pittman’s claims
as untimely. The State argued that since Mr. Pittman’s original action was filed in
a court of incompetent jurisdiction, prescription was not interrupted, and the time
for him to file his claim expired before he filed his amended petition in a court of
competent jurisdiction, i.e., the criminal jurisdiction of the Sixteenth Judicial
District Court. At the hearing on the motion to dismiss held on May 14, 2015, the
trial court denied it.
The State filed a motion for an appeal from the denial of the motion to
dismiss on May 21, 2015. The trial court granted the motion for appeal. As noted
above, upon the lodging of the record, this court issued the instant rule to show
cause.
In the State’s brief in response to this court’s rule, the State asserts that it has
the right to appeal the subject judgment pursuant to La.Code Crim.P. art. 912.
Although this provision is in the Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure, the State
contends that it is applicable to this action because the legislature has required
petitions for wrongful conviction compensation to be filed in the court of criminal
jurisdiction in which the original conviction was obtained. The State argues that
although a judgment denying an exception of prescription is not one of the specific
rulings expressly rendered appealable by Article 912, that article states that the list
is only illustrative, not exclusive. The State also notes that comment (c) of Article
912 states in pertinent part that: “Numerous preliminary rulings are appealable by
the state that are not appealable by the defendant, since such decisions end the
2 case.” Thus, since a granting of the State’s exception would result in the dismissal
of Mr. Pittman’s suit, with prejudice, as untimely, the State argues that the trial
court’s decision denying the exception is appealable by the State.
As noted above, the State’s contention that this judgment is appealable is
based on the premise that the procedural provisions of the Louisiana Code of
Criminal Procedure are applicable to this ruling. Finding no merit in this assertion,
we do not discuss whether the judgment would be appealable pursuant to La.Code
Crim.P. art. 912.
The State points out that, as originally enacted, the legislature provided that
“an application” for wrongful conviction compensation was to be filed in the civil
division of the Nineteenth Judicial District Court. This provision, however, was
amended by 2007 La. Acts 262, § 1 to provide that “[a]ll petitions for
compensation . . . shall be filed in the district court in which the original conviction
was obtained.” Even if interpreted to indicate that La.R.S. 15:572.8 must be filed
in the criminal jurisdiction of the trial court, a finding we need not reach, we do not
conclude that the amendment to the wording of the statute requires the result urged
by the State.
For example, in State v. Allen, 11-2843 (La. 4/13/12), 84 So.3d 1288, on
remand, 11-693 (La.App. 4 Cir. 8/8/12), 98 So.3d 926, writ denied, 12-1995 (La.
4/1/13), 110 So.3d 138, a three-judge panel of the court of appeal had ruled, with
one judge dissenting, to reverse the criminal district court’s decision on a bond
forfeiture judgment. The supreme court found that the appellate court erred in
failing to refer this matter to at least a five-judge panel pursuant to the requirement
of La.Const. art. 5, § 8(B). Thus, the supreme court stated, “The principle
enunciated in [State v.] Kaercher[, 380 So.2d 1365 (La.1980),] is based on
3 venerable jurisprudence that, while recognizing that bond forfeiture proceedings
are intrinsically civil matters, for jurisdictional purposes only they were treated as
criminal.” Allen, 84 So.3d at 1288 (additional citations omitted).
The State has also referred this court to Burge v. State, 10-2229 (La.
2/11/11), 54 So.3d 1110, a case involving a claim for wrongful conviction
compensation. However, the issue presented there was whether the claimant failed
to comply with the service requirements set forth in La.Code Civ.P. art. 1201(C).
Finding Article 1201 inapplicable to an action for wrongful conviction
compensation, the supreme court observed that: “LSA-R.S. 15:572.8 is sui generis,
and governs a unique situation.” Id. at 1113. The supreme court further noted that
La.R.S. 15:572.8 sets forth a unique notice procedure and that “the ordinary
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT
15-717 REVISED
STATE OF LOUISIANA
VERSUS
DAVID PITTMAN
**********
APPEAL FROM THE SIXTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF IBERIA, NO. 07-2461 HONORABLE GERARD B. WATTIGNY, DISTRICT JUDGE
MARC T. AMY JUDGE
Court composed of Judges Jimmie C. Peters, Marc T. Amy, and Billy H. Ezell.
APPEAL DISMISSED. APPELLANT PERMITTED TO FILE WRIT APPLICATION NO LATER THAN OCTOBER 9, 2015.
James D. “Buddy” Caldwell Attorney General Colin Clark Assistant Attorney General Post Office Box 94005 Baton Rouge, LA 70804 (225) 326-6200 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT: State of Louisiana Seth M. Dornier Attorney at Law 351 Saint Ferdinand Street #B Baton Rouge, LA 7 0802 (225) 389-6664 COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE: David Pittman AMY, Judge.
Upon the lodging of the record in this case, this court issued a rule for the
appellant, the State of Louisiana, to show cause by brief only why the appeal
should not be dismissed as having been taken from a non-appealable, interlocutory
order. The State filed a brief in response to this court’s rule. For the reasons
below, we dismiss the appeal and permit the State thirty days to file an application
for supervisory review with this court.
The appellee, David Pittman, was convicted pursuant to La.R.S. 40:966 for
possession of marijuana with intent to distribute. However, this court reversed the
conviction in State v. Pittman, 11-952 (La.App. 3 Cir. 3/7/12), 85 So.3d 821. The
supreme court denied writs. State v. Pittman, 12-656 (La. 4/11/12), 85 So.3d 1233.
On March 7, 2014, Mr. Pittman filed a petition in the Iberia Parish District
Court invoking its civil jurisdiction and seeking compensation for wrongful
conviction pursuant to La.R.S. 15:572.8. The State responded to the suit by filing
the exceptions of lack of subject matter jurisdiction of the civil district court and no
cause of action. The State contended that Mr. Pittman’s suit could be filed only in
the criminal jurisdiction of that court pursuant to La.R.S. 15:572.8(C) (which
provides in pertinent part that “[a]ll petitions for compensation as provided in this
Section shall be filed in the district court in which the original conviction was
obtained”).
The trial court granted both exceptions. As to the exception challenging the
subject matter jurisdiction of the civil court, the court ordered the transfer of the
petition to the criminal jurisdiction of that same district court. As to the exception
of no cause of action, the trial court granted Mr. Pittman forty-five days within
which to amend his petition to set forth the necessary factual allegations mandated to be included in the petition in order to present a claim based on La.R.S. 15:572.8.
Mr. Pittman filed his amended petition in the criminal docket number on January
12, 2015.
The State then filed a motion seeking the dismissal of Mr. Pittman’s claims
as untimely. The State argued that since Mr. Pittman’s original action was filed in
a court of incompetent jurisdiction, prescription was not interrupted, and the time
for him to file his claim expired before he filed his amended petition in a court of
competent jurisdiction, i.e., the criminal jurisdiction of the Sixteenth Judicial
District Court. At the hearing on the motion to dismiss held on May 14, 2015, the
trial court denied it.
The State filed a motion for an appeal from the denial of the motion to
dismiss on May 21, 2015. The trial court granted the motion for appeal. As noted
above, upon the lodging of the record, this court issued the instant rule to show
cause.
In the State’s brief in response to this court’s rule, the State asserts that it has
the right to appeal the subject judgment pursuant to La.Code Crim.P. art. 912.
Although this provision is in the Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure, the State
contends that it is applicable to this action because the legislature has required
petitions for wrongful conviction compensation to be filed in the court of criminal
jurisdiction in which the original conviction was obtained. The State argues that
although a judgment denying an exception of prescription is not one of the specific
rulings expressly rendered appealable by Article 912, that article states that the list
is only illustrative, not exclusive. The State also notes that comment (c) of Article
912 states in pertinent part that: “Numerous preliminary rulings are appealable by
the state that are not appealable by the defendant, since such decisions end the
2 case.” Thus, since a granting of the State’s exception would result in the dismissal
of Mr. Pittman’s suit, with prejudice, as untimely, the State argues that the trial
court’s decision denying the exception is appealable by the State.
As noted above, the State’s contention that this judgment is appealable is
based on the premise that the procedural provisions of the Louisiana Code of
Criminal Procedure are applicable to this ruling. Finding no merit in this assertion,
we do not discuss whether the judgment would be appealable pursuant to La.Code
Crim.P. art. 912.
The State points out that, as originally enacted, the legislature provided that
“an application” for wrongful conviction compensation was to be filed in the civil
division of the Nineteenth Judicial District Court. This provision, however, was
amended by 2007 La. Acts 262, § 1 to provide that “[a]ll petitions for
compensation . . . shall be filed in the district court in which the original conviction
was obtained.” Even if interpreted to indicate that La.R.S. 15:572.8 must be filed
in the criminal jurisdiction of the trial court, a finding we need not reach, we do not
conclude that the amendment to the wording of the statute requires the result urged
by the State.
For example, in State v. Allen, 11-2843 (La. 4/13/12), 84 So.3d 1288, on
remand, 11-693 (La.App. 4 Cir. 8/8/12), 98 So.3d 926, writ denied, 12-1995 (La.
4/1/13), 110 So.3d 138, a three-judge panel of the court of appeal had ruled, with
one judge dissenting, to reverse the criminal district court’s decision on a bond
forfeiture judgment. The supreme court found that the appellate court erred in
failing to refer this matter to at least a five-judge panel pursuant to the requirement
of La.Const. art. 5, § 8(B). Thus, the supreme court stated, “The principle
enunciated in [State v.] Kaercher[, 380 So.2d 1365 (La.1980),] is based on
3 venerable jurisprudence that, while recognizing that bond forfeiture proceedings
are intrinsically civil matters, for jurisdictional purposes only they were treated as
criminal.” Allen, 84 So.3d at 1288 (additional citations omitted).
The State has also referred this court to Burge v. State, 10-2229 (La.
2/11/11), 54 So.3d 1110, a case involving a claim for wrongful conviction
compensation. However, the issue presented there was whether the claimant failed
to comply with the service requirements set forth in La.Code Civ.P. art. 1201(C).
Finding Article 1201 inapplicable to an action for wrongful conviction
compensation, the supreme court observed that: “LSA-R.S. 15:572.8 is sui generis,
and governs a unique situation.” Id. at 1113. The supreme court further noted that
La.R.S. 15:572.8 sets forth a unique notice procedure and that “the ordinary
requirements for service of petition involving claims against the state do not apply
to this unique situation.” Id. at 1114.
However, La.R.S. 15:572.8 sets forth no specific provision for appellate
review. Therefore, we find that reference to the general rules regarding appellate
review of civil cases is appropriate and that the appealable nature of the ruling
rendered in this action must be determined by reference to the applicable rules set
forth in the Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure. As the ruling appealed does not
decide the merits of this matter, we find that the ruling is interlocutory pursuant to
La.Code Civ.P. art. 1841. Further finding no statute that expressly provides for an
appeal of this judgment, we conclude that an appeal does not lie in this instance.
La.Code Civ.P. art. 2083. Therefore, we hereby dismiss this appeal without
prejudice.
However, as requested by the State, we find that in the interest of justice, the
State should be afforded the opportunity to obtain review of this ruling by applying
4 for this court to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction. Accordingly, we hereby order
that the State be permitted to file an application for supervisory writs from this
ruling with this court no later than October 9, 2015.
APPEAL DISMISSED.
APPELLANT PERMITTED TO FILE WRIT APPLICATION NO LATER THAN OCTOBER 9, 2015.