State of Louisiana v. Henry D. Gilmore

• Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
• Decided: August 11, 2010
• Docket: KA-0010-0708
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

10-708

VERSUS

HENRY D. GILMORE

************ APPEAL FROM THE THIRTIETH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF VERNON, NO. 76325 HONORABLE JOHN C. FORD, DISTRICT JUDGE ************

BILLY H. EZELL JUDGE

************

Court composed of Billy H. Ezell, Shannon J. Gremillion, and David E. Chatelain,* Judges.

APPEAL DISMISSED. DEFENDANT-APPELLANT IS PERMITTED TO FILE AN APPLICATION FOR SUPERVISORY WRITS WITHIN THIRTY DAYS OF THE DATE OF THIS DECISION.

Hon. Asa Allen Skinner District Attorney, 30th JDC P.O. Box 1188 Leesville, LA 71496-1188 (337) 239-2008 COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE: State of Louisiana

James Edward Beal Louisiana Appellate Project P.O. Box 307 Jonesboro, LA 71251-0307 (318) 259-2391 COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT: Henry D. Gilmore

____________________ *Honorable David E. Chatelain participated in this decision by appointment of the Louisiana Supreme Court as Judge Pro Tempore. Ezell, J.

On December 2, 2009, the Defendant, Henry D. Gilmore, pled guilty to the

offense of disturbing the peace, a violation of La.R.S. 14:103(A)(1). Pursuant to the

plea agreement, the trial court sentenced the defendant to thirty days in the Vernon

Parish jail. On March 26, 2010, the defendant filed a motion for appeal from the trial

court’s ruling, and the trial court granted the motion on April 6, 2010.

Thereafter, on June 17, 2010, this court issued a rule to show cause why the

appeal should not be dismissed as not appealable. In response, the Defendant

submitted a response in which he agreed that the appeal should be dismissed.1

The judgment at issue is not appealable. See La.Code Crim.P. art. 912.1.

Accordingly, we hereby dismiss the Defendant’s appeal. However, the Defendant

may seek supervisory writs from the trial court’s ruling. The Defendant is neither

required to file notice of intent to seek writs nor obtain an order from the trial court

setting a return date, as is generally required by Uniform Rules—Courts of Appeal,

Rule 4-3. We construe the motion for appeal as timely-filed notice of intent to seek

a supervisory writ.

APPEAL DISMISSED. DEFENDANT-APPELLANT IS PERMITTED TO FILE AN APPLICATION FOR SUPERVISORY WRITS WITHIN THIRTY DAYS OF THE DATE OF THIS DECISION.

1 The response was due no later than July 7, 2010, but was not submitted until July 8, 2010.