State of Louisiana v. Richard James Allen

• Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
• Decided: February 22, 2012
• Docket: KA-0012-0038
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

12-38

VERSUS

RICHARD JAMES ALLEN

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

APPEAL FROM THE FOURTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF CALCASIEU, NO. 7073-10 HONORABLE DAVID KENT SAVOIE, DISTRICT JUDGE

ELIZABETH A. PICKETT JUDGE

Court composed of Elizabeth A. Pickett, Shannon J. Gremillion, and Phyllis M. Keaty, Judges.

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

Hon. John Foster DeRosier District Attorney - 14th JDC P.O. Box 3206 Lake Charles, LA 70602-3206 (337) 437-3400 COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE: State of Louisiana

Edward Kelly Bauman Louisiana Appellate Project P.O. Box 1641 Lake Charles, LA 70602-1641 (337) 491-0570 COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT: Richard James Allen Pickett, Judge.

On January 26, 2011, the Defendant, Richard James Allen, pled guilty to

second degree robbery, a violation of La.R.S. 14:64.4, and admitted that he

violated the terms of his probation, which were previously imposed as a result of

other unrelated charges. On August 17, 2011, the trial court revoked the

Defendant’s probation and ordered that he serve the originally-imposed sentence.

The court also sentenced the Defendant on the robbery charge.

On August 19, 2011, the Defendant filed a motion to appeal his robbery

conviction and sentence, as well as the court’s revocation of his probation, which

was granted by the trial court on August 18, 2011. The matters came before this

court in separate records, with the instant case being the appeal of the Defendant’s

probation revocation.

On January 13, 2012, this court issued a rule to show cause why the appeal

should not be dismissed as the judgment is non-appealable. The Defendant did not

respond.

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

Accordingly, we hereby dismiss the Defendant’s appeal. The Defendant may seek

supervisory writs within thirty (30) days of the date of this decision. The

Defendant is not required to file a notice of intent to seek writs, nor must he 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 a timely-filed notice of intent to seek a supervisory writ.

APPEAL DISMISSED. THE DEFENDANT IS PERMITTED TO FILE AN

APPLICATION FOR SUPERVISORY WRITS WITHIN THIRTY DAYS OF

THE DATE OF THIS OPINION.