State v. Scott

Supreme Court of Louisiana

State v. Scott

123 So. 3d 160, 2013 WL 4710339, 2013 La. LEXIS 1812

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedAugust 30, 2013

DocketNo. 2012-KP-2458

StatusPublished

This text of 123 So. 3d 160 (State v. Scott) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Louisiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Scott, 123 So. 3d 160, 2013 WL 4710339, 2013 La. LEXIS 1812 (La. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

| (Writ granted; case remanded to the Third Circuit Court of Appeal. Given that relator has shown that he filed his writ application within the delay established by the district court following its September 7, 2012, judgment, the court of appeal erred when it dismissed the pleading based on its failure to comply with Uniform Rules — Courts of Appeal, Rule, 4-3. See, e.g. State v. Goppelt, 08-0576, p. 2 (La.10/31/08), 993 So.2d 1188, 1189 (Rule 4-3 “should be sparingly applied in cases in which a defendant does not unreasonably delay in asserting her constitutional and statutory right to seek supervisory review in the court of appeal of proceedings that have concluded in conviction and sentence”); see also Barnard v. Barnard, 96-0859, p. 1 (La.6/24/96), 675 So.2d 734 (the trial court’s fixing of return date more 30 days from the date of its adverse judg[161]*161ment was not a basis for refusing to consider a writ application when the petitioner complied with the return date fixed). The Third Circuit is therefore ordered to consider the writ application on the merits.

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

PER CURIAM.

| (Writ granted; case remanded to the Third Circuit Court of Appeal. Given that relator has shown that he filed his writ application within the delay established by the district court following its September 7, 2012, judgment, the court of appeal erred when it dismissed the pleading based on its failure to comply with Uniform Rules — Courts of Appeal, Rule, 4-3. See, e.g. State v. Goppelt, 08-0576, p. 2 (La.10/31/08), 993 So.2d 1188, 1189 (Rule 4-3 “should be sparingly applied in cases in which a defendant does not unreasonably delay in asserting her constitutional and statutory right to seek supervisory review in the court of appeal of proceedings that have concluded in conviction and sentence”); see also Barnard v. Barnard, 96-0859, p. 1 (La.6/24/96), 675 So.2d 734 (the trial court’s fixing of return date more 30 days from the date of its adverse judg[161]*161ment was not a basis for refusing to consider a writ application when the petitioner complied with the return date fixed). The Third Circuit is therefore ordered to consider the writ application on the merits.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

123 So. 3d 160, 2013 WL 4710339, 2013 La. LEXIS 1812, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-scott-la-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack