State Of Louisiana v. Roydall Lumar
State Of Louisiana v. Roydall Lumar, No. 2022KW0833 (La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. Oct. 24, 2022).
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- Cole v. ST. FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INS. CO. 433 So. 2d 710
Opinion text
STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT
STATE OF LOUISIANA NO. 2022 KW 0833
VERSUS
ROYDALL LUMAR OCTOBER 24, 2022
In Re: Roydall Lumar, applying for supervisory writs,
Ascension Parish Court, Parish of Ascension, No.
607,841.
BEFORE : McDONALD, McCLENDON, AND HOLDRIDGE, JJ.
WRIT NOT CONSIDERED. Relator failed to comply with the
Uniform Rules of Louisiana Courts of Appeal, Rule 4-5(A), by
failing to include a notarized affidavit verifying the
allegations of the application and certifying that a copy has
been delivered or mailed to the respondent judge and opposing
counsel that includes their respective addresses and telephone
numbers. The writ application does not comply with Rule 4-5(B)
as it is not properly bound. Relator also failed to comply with
Rule 4-5(C) (1), (8), (9) and (11), by failing to include an
Index, a copy of the misdemeanor bill of information, a copy of
the opposition, if any, and the return date order. Moreover,
although it is not a violation of the Uniform Rules, relator
failed to include a copy of the bench trial transcript and a
copy of any exhibits introduced at trial, which we find
necessary to adequately review the parish court’s judgment. La.
Code Crim. P. art. 912.1(C) (1); City of Baton Rouge v. Plain,
433 So.2d 710 (La.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 896, 104 S.Ct. 246,
78 L.Ed.2d 235 (1983). Supplementation of this writ application
and/or an application for rehearing will not be considered. See
Uniform Rules of Louisiana Courts of Appeal, Rules 2-18.7 & 4-9.
Any future filing on the issues raised herein should include the
entire contents of this application, the missing items noted
above, and a copy of this ruling.
JMM
PMc
GH
COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT
Ac)
DEPUTY CLERK OF COURT
FOR THE COURT