State of Louisiana (City of Bossier) v. Randall Matthews

Judgment rendered December 10, 2025.
Application for rehearing may be filed
within the delay allowed by Art. 922,
La. C. Cr. P.

No. 56,673-KA

COURT OF APPEAL
SECOND CIRCUIT
STATE OF LOUISIANA

*****

STATE OF LOUISIANA Appellee
(CITY OF BOSSIER)
versus

RANDALL MATTHEWS Appellant

*****

Appealed from the
Twenty-Sixth Judicial District Court for the
Parish of Bossier, Louisiana
Trial Court No. U93616

Honorable A. Parker Self, Jr., Judge

*****

LAW OFFICES OF J. RANSDELL KEENE Counsel for Appellant
By: J. Ransdell Keene

J. SCHUYLER MARVIN Counsel for Appellee
District Attorney

RICHARD R. RAY
Assistant City Attorney

*****

Before THOMPSON, ROBINSON, and HUNTER, JJ.

THOMPSON, J.

Randall Matthews was arrested after a confrontation with a Bossier

City police officer who was working security in a Dillards department store.

Matthews was subsequently convicted of the misdemeanor charges of

disturbing the peace and resisting arrest and was originally sentenced by the

city court judge to 60 days in jail, plus fines. Matthews’ sentence was

modified to a probated sentence after disclosure of a cancer diagnosis, but

the jail term was reinstated apparently in response to his appeal of the even

more lenient sentence. His counsel appealed the convictions, and he paid

the bond for the record of the proceedings to be produced by the clerk of

court. The city court issued a return date for the appeal, which passed with

nothing being filed by Matthews. Matthews now argues that the clerk of

court did not provide a copy of the record until several months after he paid

the bond and that his appeal with the district court, five months after receipt

of that record, should be determined to be timely.

On review, the district court ruled that (1) Matthews’ convictions

were not properly before it because the appeal of those convictions was

untimely, and (2) Matthews’ resentencing to jail time was improper and

remanded the matter to city court for sentencing. Matthews was

subsequently sentenced by the city court to the previous probated sentence.

Matthews now appeals the ruling of the district court. For the reasons set

forth more fully herein, we affirm the district court’s ruling.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On December 17, 2021, Officer Danny Turner with the Bossier City

Police was working part-time as security at the Dillards department store at

Pierre Bossier Mall in Bossier City, Louisiana, when Randall Matthews

(“Matthews”) angrily came up and confronted him. Officer Turner asked

Matthews to get out of his face, but Matthews refused. Officer Turner

testified he thought Matthews was going hit him. Matthews was cursing out

loud and stated that the officer was going to need his mace and told the

officer that he “better watch it” and then walked away while cursing.

Officer Turner told Matthews to stop, but he refused to do so. Officer

Turner reported that Matthews turned around, looked at him, and then kept

going. Office Turner caught up with Matthews, grabbed him and told him

he was under arrest. Matthews was charged with three violations of the city

code of Bossier City, Louisiana:

1. Assault on Officer Danny Turner by threatening him in violation of
Section 38-104 of the city code;

2. Disturbing the peace by addressing another person in language which
is threatening, profane, obscene or derisive which “had a tendency to
incite the other person” to violate retaliatory action, in violation of
Section 28-284, paragraph 22 of the city code;

3. Unlawfully resisting a police officer of the City of Bossier City, a
violation of Section 38-286 of the city code.

A bench trial was held at city court on December 12, 2023. Before

the trial got underway, the State dismissed the first count of assault against

Matthews. At trial, Officer Turner testified about the events at the Dillards,

and his bodycam footage was presented to the court, although that footage is

not included in the record. Matthews’ girlfriend, Angela Dixon, also

testified, stating that she and Matthews attempted to leave the Dillards and

the situation was escalated by the officer. At the conclusion of trial, on

December 12, 2023, Matthews was convicted of disturbing the peace and

resisting arrest.

2

At his first sentencing, on January 23, 2024, Matthews was sentenced

to 60 days in Bossier City Jail for the charge of disturbing the peace and a

$499.50 fine plus costs or 20 additional days for the charge of resisting an

officer. That same day a motion and order for appeal was filed by the

defendant with a return date of February 23, 2024. The defendant paid for

the production of the transcript on that date, but it took the clerk of court

several months to complete the record. Matthews did not file anything with

the court on or before the February 23, 2024 return date, not even a request

for an extension of time due to the record not being prepared timely.

The execution of sentence date was originally set for April 23, 2024,

but was continued to May 8, 2024. On May 8, 2024, the prosecution argued

that Matthews had not timely filed an application for supervisory writ. On

June 12, 2024, the Bossier City Clerk mailed the transcripts of Matthews’

trial to counsel, who received them on June 17, 2024. On June 18, 2024, the

city court judge issued a written opinion, finding that that Matthews failed to

timely file a writ application. A second execution of the sentence was set on

the city court’s docket for August 13, 2024.

On August 13, 2024, Matthews requested that the 60-day sentence be

reconsidered due to his recent cancer diagnosis. The parties agreed on the

amended sentence, including probation rather than jail time. Matthews’

sentence for disturbing the peace was modified so that his 60-day sentence

was suspended, and he was placed on 2 years’ supervised probation with

special conditions to include an anger management class, banning him from

Pierre Bossier Mall and Dillards, 80 hours of community service, and a $60

probation fee to the Bossier City’s Marshal’s office.

3

After obtaining a more lenient sentence which did not include any

period of incarceration, Matthews then sought a supervisory writ from the

district court on this change to his sentence, and the city court set a hearing

on the notice of intent to seek writs. On September 17, 2024, the city court

ordered that the original sentence and its corresponding jail term be

imposed. Matthews also sought supervisory review of this change in his

sentence.

The appeal of a judgment in a criminal case tried under a city

ordinance in a city court is appealed to the district court, and the appeals are

on the law alone. La. R.S. 13:1896(B). December 20, 2024, the matter was

heard before the district court. The court ordered the issues be briefed and

set a new date of March 7, 2025. The district court refused to consider

modifications of Matthew’s underlying conviction because his original

supervisory writ was untimely and he was procedurally barred from review

of his conviction. The district court noted that Matthews never filed an

application for supervisory writ until October 17, 2024, and never sought an

extension to file his application, even though his original return date was

February 23, 2024, noting that he had received the record on June 12, 2024.

The court then ruled that the city court’s ruling vacating his amended

sentence and reinstating jail time was improper and remanded the matter to

city court for the suspended sentence and probation to be reinstated. This

appeal arises from the district court’s ruling.

DISCUSSION

Matthews raises the following three assignments of error:

1. The district court erred in failing to consider the insufficiency of the
evidence upon which to convict.

4

2. The district court erred by failing to provide the defendant due
process.

3. The conviction for any crime must be based on something more than
speculation.

We will first address the assignment of error regarding due process, as

its resolution pretermits a discussion of the remaining two assignments of

error. Matthews’ argument that the district court failed to provide him with

due process centers around the district court’s holding that Matthews’

criminal convictions were not properly before the district court for

supervisory review. The district court found that although Matthews sought

an appeal of his convictions and paid the bond associated with that appeal,

he did not file anything by his set return date of February 23, 2024.

Matthews argues to this Court that he is not at fault for failing to file

anything by the return date because the clerk of court did not prepare the

transcript until June 12, 2024. The record reflects that Matthews did not

actually file anything until October 17, 2024, more than four months after

receiving the transcript.

As noted above, the appeal of a judgment in a criminal case tried

under a city ordinance in a city court is appeal to the district court. The

defendant has a right to judicial review by application to the court of appeal

for a writ of review. This application shall be accompanied by a complete

record of all evidence upon which the judgment is based unless the

defendant intelligently waives the right to cause all or any portion of the

record to accompany the application. La. C. Cr. P. art. 912.1(C)(1).

The Louisiana Supreme Court has examined the rule that states an

application not filed in the appellate court within the time so fixed or

5

extended shall not be considered, in the absence of a showing that the delay

in filing was not due to the applicant’s fault. State v. Goppelt, 08-0576 (La.

10/31/08), 993 So. 2d 1188. This rule promotes the finality of interlocutory

rulings and prevents unnecessary delay in the administration of ongoing

litigation. Id. In Goppelt, supra, a defendant appealed the court of appeals

ruling not considering her misdemeanor conviction because her counsel did

not timely file in the district court for an extension of the original 30-day

return date for taking supervisory writs before the return date expired. The

court noted that counsel filed a motion to extend the return date three days

after the original 30-day period elapsed. The court overturned the ruling by

the court of appeal, noting that the rule should be sparingly applied in cases

in which a defendant does not unreasonably delay in asserting his

constitutional and statutory right to see supervisory review in the court of

appeal proceedings that have concluded in conviction and sentence. Id.

In State v. Bourg, 16-313 (La. App. 5 Cir. 6/29/16), 196 So. 3d 737, a

defendant was convicted of a DWI and filed a motion for appeal and

designation of the record on October 6, 2015. The trial court set a return

date for November 6, 2015, but the defendant failed to file anything on the

writ application until April 20, 2016, when he filed a request for a certified

copy of the record. The appellate court found that the matter was

distinguishable from State v. Goppelt, supra, because the delay was

unreasonable and the defendant provided no good reason for the lack of

timeliness.

In the present matter, we agree with the district court that Matthews’

failure to file anything at all in his appeal until October 17, 2024 is

unreasonable. The record is clear that Matthews first did not file anything
6

before his return date, never filed for an extension of time, and did not make

his first filing until four months after receiving the transcript. While

acknowledging that the clerk of court failed to provide a transcript of the

proceedings until June 12, 2024, there is no reasonable excuse for Matthews’

failure to file anything with the court in the interim until the record was

complete and certainly no reasonable excuse in the period between receipt of

the transcript on June 12, 2024 and until his October 17, 2024 filing. That

four-month delay (after an additional five months from the stated return

date) to make any filing with the court is an unreasonable delay.

Considering this, we affirm the trial court’s ruling that Matthews’ conviction

was not properly before it and find that this assignment of error is without

merit.

As the remaining two assignments of error both involve Matthews’

original convictions and having found that those convictions were not

properly before the district court or before us now on review, they will not

be addressed and any further review is pretermitted.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the district court’s ruling is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

7