William and Imelda Wilhite v. Heath Brian Veillon

• Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
• Decided: November 22, 2017
• Docket: KA-0017-0612
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT P.O. Box 16577 Lake Charles, LA. 70616 (337) 433-9403

Hon. G. Michael Canaday Oliver Jackson Schrumpf Judge, 14 JDC Schrumpf & Schrumpf P. O. Box 3210 3801 Maplewood Dr. Lake Charles, LA 70602-3210 Sulphur, LA 70663 Heath Brian Veillon Proper Person 2580 Miller Drive Sulphur, LA 70662

NOTICE OF JUDGMENT AND

CERTIFICATE OF MAILING

November 22, 2017 Docket Number: KA 17-612

WILLIAM AND IMELDA WILHITE VERSUS HEATH BRIAN VEILLON

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the attached judgment and written opinion was rendered this date and a copy was mailed to the trial judge, all counsel of record and all parties not represented by counsel as listed above.

FOR THE COURT

Cherta kWh

Charles K. McNeely Clerk of Court

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION |

STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

17-612

Judgment rendered and mailed to all

parties or counsel on November 22, 2017. WILLIAM AND IMELDA WILHITE Applications for rehearing may be filed

within the delays allowed by La. Code Civ. VERSUS P. art. 2166 or La. Code Crim. P. art. 922. HEATH BRIAN VEILLON

KeEKKRKKKRRE KE APPEAL FROM THE

FOURTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF CALCASIEU, NO. 2015-3344 HONORABLE G. MICHAEL CANADAY, DISTRICT JUDGE

REKKKEKKK KKK

JOHN D. SAUNDERS JUDGE

REKKKE EKER EK

S ’ S YRS Court composed of John D. Saunders, Marc T. Amy, and Candyce G. Perret, ys x Judges. . YY

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

Oliver Jackson Schrumpf

Schrumpf & Schrumpf

3801 Maplewood Drive

Sulphur, LA 70663

(337) 625-9077

COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE: William and Imelda Wilhite

Heath Brian Veillon In Proper Person 2580 Miller Dr. Sulphur, LA 70665 (337) 244-0657

Saunders, Judge.

The present case stems from a civil drainage dispute dating back to 2015. On January 30, 2017, the Plaintiffs, William and Imelda Wilhite, filed a petition to hold Defendant, Heath Brian Veillon, in contempt for the alleged failure to comply with a preliminary injunction signed in September of 2015, a contempt order signed in January of 2016, a second contempt order and injunction signed in May of 2016, and a third judgment of contempt signed in October 2016. At a hearing on the motion held on April 13, 201 7, the district court again found Defendant to be in contempt of court and sentenced him to thirty days in parish jail and to pay a fine of five-hundred dollars plus court costs or serve an additional thirty days in lieu thereof. We note this is a criminal contempt, as it punishes Defendant for disobeying a court order. Dauphine v. Carencro High School, 02-2005 (La. 4/21/03), 843 So.2d 1096.

On May 9, 2017, the district court granted Defendant a suspensive appeal. On July 3, 2017, this court issued a rule to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed, since the judgment at issue is non-appealable. Defendant, acting in proper person, timely filed a brief on July 24, 2017. However, he did not address the rule to show cause. Plaintiffs were given until September 27 to file a brief; they filed untimely on October 11. Plaintiffs seek to have the appeal dismissed but do not address the rule to show cause.

The judgment at issue is not appealable. See La.Code Crim_P. arts. 779, 912.1, La.Code Civ.P. art. 227, La.R.S. 13:4611, 14:2(A)(6). Accordingly, we hereby dismiss the Defendant’s appeal. The Defendant may seek supervisory writs

within fifteen days of the date of this decision. 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 notice of 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 FIFTEEN DAYS

OF THE DATE OF THIS OPINION.