State of Louisiana v. Edith Gonzales

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

13-82

STATE OF LOUISIANA

VERSUS

EDITH GONZALES

**********

APPEAL FROM THE
SIXTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF ST. MARTIN, NO. 78543
HONORABLE KEITH RAYNE JULES COMEAUX, DISTRICT JUDGE

**********

SHANNON J. GREMILLION

JUDGE

**********

Court composed of Jimmie C. Peters, James T. Genovese, and Shannon J.
Gremillion, Judges.

APPEAL DISMISSED. APPELLANT IS PERMITTED TO
FILE AN APPLICATION FOR SUPERVISORY WRITS.

Kim Michael Kidd
Assistant District Attorney - 16th Judicial District
307 Church St.
St. Martinville, LA 70582
(337) 394-2220
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE:
State of Louisiana

Jermaine Demetrie Williams
Attorney at Law
108 W. Congress Street
Lafayette, LA 70501
(337) 235-3989
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT:
Edith Gonzales

GREMILLION, Judge.

This court issued, sua sponte, a rule ordering Defendant-Appellant, Edith

Gonzales, to show cause, by brief only, why the appeal in this matter should not be

dismissed as premature. For the reasons given herein, we hereby dismiss the

appeal, but we permit the appellant to file a writ application no later than the date

set forth in this opinion.

This cases involves a civil forfeiture proceeding. After conducting a traffic

stop on Interstate 10, officers with the St. Martin Parish Sheriff’s Office seized

$84,170.00 in cash from Defendant’s car. The State of Louisiana has filed a notice

of pending forfeiture, and Defendant denies that the seized money is subject to

forfeiture. Defendant filed a motion for a probable cause hearing and for the

release of the seized money. At a hearing held on March 15, 2012, the trial court

entered an oral ruling regarding Defendant’s motion. On April 3, 2012, Defendant

filed a motion for appeal, and the order granting the appeal was signed on April 30,

2012. The record was lodged in this court on January 25, 2013. Because the

record did not contain a signed judgment, this court issued a rule for Defendant to

show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed as premature. Defendant’s

response to the rule to show cause order was due on February 13, 2013; however,

this court did not receive a response to the rule.

We note that in its oral ruling of March 15, 2012, the trial court made a

finding that there was probable cause for the state to seize Defendant’s money and

retain it until the forfeiture trial. Because the oral judgment at issue does not

decide the merits of the case, we find that the judgment is interlocutory. See

La.Code Civ.P. art. 1841. Since this appeal was taken from a non-appealable,

interlocutory ruling, we hereby dismiss the appeal at Defendant’s cost. Defendant,

Edith Gonzales, is hereby permitted to file a proper application for writs in

compliance with Uniform Rules—Courts of Appeal, Rule 4, no later than April 4,

2013. The Appellant is not required to file a notice of intent to seek writs nor

obtain an order setting a return date pursuant to Uniform Rules—Courts of Appeal,

Rule 4–3, as we hereby construe the motion for appeal as a timely filed notice of

intent to seek a supervisory writ.

APPEAL DISMISSED. APPELLANT IS PERMITTED TO FILE AN
APPLICATION FOR SUPERVISORY WRITS.

THIS OPINION IS NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION.
Rule 2-16.3 Uniform Rules, Court of Appeal.

2