State v. Berry

Louisiana Court of Appeal

State v. Berry

445 So. 2d 763, 1984 La. App. LEXIS 8066

CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal

DecidedJanuary 12, 1984

DocketNo. KA-1276/1277

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 445 So. 2d 763 (State v. Berry) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Louisiana Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Berry, 445 So. 2d 763, 1984 La. App. LEXIS 8066 (La. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

CIACCIO, Judge.

Defendant, Kevin Berry, appealed to this Court from a ruling of the district court which revoked his probation. No motion to dismiss the appeal has been filed in this Court. It has come to our attention, however, that defendant has no right of appeal from the revocation of his probation. Such a ruling can be reviewed by the court only under its supervisory jurisdiction. State v. Manuel, 349 So.2d 882 (La.1977); State v. Haynes, 255 La. 52, 229 So.2d 697 (1969); State v. Bruno, 253 La. 669, 219 So.2d 490 (1969). cf. La. Const. of 1974 Art. 5 Sec. 10, La.C.Cr.P. Arts. 912 and 912.1.

On December 12, 1983, we issued an order requesting appellant to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed. Neither party responded to this order.

Accordingly, in light of the above cited authorities, this appeal is dismissed ex pro-prio motu.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

CIACCIO, Judge.

Defendant, Kevin Berry, appealed to this Court from a ruling of the district court which revoked his probation. No motion to dismiss the appeal has been filed in this Court. It has come to our attention, however, that defendant has no right of appeal from the revocation of his probation. Such a ruling can be reviewed by the court only under its supervisory jurisdiction. State v. Manuel, 349 So.2d 882 (La.1977); State v. Haynes, 255 La. 52, 229 So.2d 697 (1969); State v. Bruno, 253 La. 669, 219 So.2d 490 (1969). cf. La. Const. of 1974 Art. 5 Sec. 10, La.C.Cr.P. Arts. 912 and 912.1.

On December 12, 1983, we issued an order requesting appellant to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed. Neither party responded to this order.

Accordingly, in light of the above cited authorities, this appeal is dismissed ex pro-prio motu.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

445 So. 2d 763, 1984 La. App. LEXIS 8066, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-berry-lactapp-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack