State v. Tamburo

Louisiana Court of Appeal

State v. Tamburo

650 So. 2d 307, 94 La.App. 5 Cir. 391, 1995 La. App. LEXIS 34, 1995 WL 15427

CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal

DecidedJanuary 18, 1995

DocketNo. 94-KA-391

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 650 So. 2d 307 (State v. Tamburo) 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. Tamburo, 650 So. 2d 307, 94 La.App. 5 Cir. 391, 1995 La. App. LEXIS 34, 1995 WL 15427 (La. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

JiGRISBAUM, Judge.

In this matter, the defendant appeals from a judgment revoking his probation. There is no right of appeal from a probation revocation; accordingly, in the interest of judicial economy, we will treat this appeal as a supervisory writ and herein grant review. Upon review, the writ is denied.

ISSUE

The single issue presented is whether the trial court erred in revoking the defendant’s probation.

ANALYSIS

The record shows that, at the hearing on the probation revocation, the defendant’s probation officer, Mr. Brian Bond, testified that the defendant tested positive for cocaine at a New Orleans Substance Abuse Clinic on April 4, 1993, Rwhich was during his probation term. The defendant himself admitted he had used cocaine during his probationary period. Mr. Bond also testified that the last time the defendant had checked in with him was in July 1993. Defendant admits he was to check in once every three months but had missed the last two visits. Additionally, Mr. Bond testified that the defendant was required to send in a monthly report, but Mr. Bond had not received such a report since July 1993. The defendant was also required to inform the probation officer of any change of address, but Mr. Bond stated defendant moved in July 1993 but had yet to notify him of his new address. Finally, in responding to the above violations, the defendant cites personal problems in his life, including his divorce and temporary loss of job, as his reasons for putting things “on the back burner.”

In light of the above evidence, we find the trial court in no way abused its wide discretion in revoking this defendant’s probation.

Finally, we note relator requested an error patent review. However, the law does not accord us the right to review for error patent in a writ scenario. La.Code Crim.P. art. 920. Importantly, since this matter was incorrectly lodged as an appeal and incorrectly docketed by this Court as such, we have, like we have done in the past, accorded the matter writ status under the guise of judicial economy. This approach is inconsistent with our legislative scheme for the appropriate exercise of our supervisory jurisdiction and will not be repeated as of January 1,1995, pursuant to our En Banc Order dated December 9, 1994.

For the reasons assigned, the writ is denied.

WRIT DENIED.

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

JiGRISBAUM, Judge.

In this matter, the defendant appeals from a judgment revoking his probation. There is no right of appeal from a probation revocation; accordingly, in the interest of judicial economy, we will treat this appeal as a supervisory writ and herein grant review. Upon review, the writ is denied.

ISSUE

The single issue presented is whether the trial court erred in revoking the defendant’s probation.

ANALYSIS

The record shows that, at the hearing on the probation revocation, the defendant’s probation officer, Mr. Brian Bond, testified that the defendant tested positive for cocaine at a New Orleans Substance Abuse Clinic on April 4, 1993, Rwhich was during his probation term. The defendant himself admitted he had used cocaine during his probationary period. Mr. Bond also testified that the last time the defendant had checked in with him was in July 1993. Defendant admits he was to check in once every three months but had missed the last two visits. Additionally, Mr. Bond testified that the defendant was required to send in a monthly report, but Mr. Bond had not received such a report since July 1993. The defendant was also required to inform the probation officer of any change of address, but Mr. Bond stated defendant moved in July 1993 but had yet to notify him of his new address. Finally, in responding to the above violations, the defendant cites personal problems in his life, including his divorce and temporary loss of job, as his reasons for putting things “on the back burner.”

In light of the above evidence, we find the trial court in no way abused its wide discretion in revoking this defendant’s probation.

Finally, we note relator requested an error patent review. However, the law does not accord us the right to review for error patent in a writ scenario. La.Code Crim.P. art. 920. Importantly, since this matter was incorrectly lodged as an appeal and incorrectly docketed by this Court as such, we have, like we have done in the past, accorded the matter writ status under the guise of judicial economy. This approach is inconsistent with our legislative scheme for the appropriate exercise of our supervisory jurisdiction and will not be repeated as of January 1,1995, pursuant to our En Banc Order dated December 9, 1994.

For the reasons assigned, the writ is denied.

WRIT DENIED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

650 So. 2d 307, 94 La.App. 5 Cir. 391, 1995 La. App. LEXIS 34, 1995 WL 15427, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-tamburo-lactapp-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack