State of Louisiana v. Carl E. Polk

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

KA07-60

STATE OF LOUISIANA

VERSUS

CARL E. POLK

**********

APPEAL FROM THE
SIXTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF IBERIA, NO. 05-1553
HONORABLE GERALD B. WATTINGLY

**********

GLENN B. GREMILLION
JUDGE

**********

Court composed of Sylvia R. Cooks, Glenn B. Gremillion, and Elizabeth A. Pickett,
Judges.

APPEAL DISMISSED. DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
IS PERMITTED TO FILE AN APPLICATION FOR
SUPERVISORY WRITS WITHIN THIRTY DAYS
FROM THE DATE OF THIS DECISION.

Hon. J. Phillip Haney
District Attorney, 16th JDC
300 Iberia Street, Suite 200
New Iberia, LA 70560
(337) 369-4420
COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE:
State of Louisiana

Carl E. Polk, Pro Se
307 Candleglow Drive
New Iberia, LA 70563

Gremillion, Judge.

The Defendant, Carl E. Polk, was charged by bill of information with dogs not

to run at large, a violation of La.R.S. 3:2771. On May 2, 2006, the defendant and the

State entered a consent judgment, stating that the defendant’s dogs were “Dangerous

Dogs” within the meaning of La.R.S. 14:102.12 et seq. The judgment also ordered

the Defendant to keep the dogs enclosed except under limited circumstances, to post

warning signs, and to inform the Iberia Parish Animal Warden of any changes in the

dogs’ condition or location. One of the dogs died. Thereafter, the State filed a Motion

and Order to Euthanize the remaining dog. Following a hearing held on September

26, 2006, the trial court ordered the Defendant to pay the costs of boarding the dog

and the costs of the proceedings. The trial court also ordered that the dog be put up

for adoption by someone other than the Defendant or his family. On October 26, 2006,

the Defendant filed a Motion for Appeal which was granted by the trial court.

On January 18, 2007, this court issued a rule to show cause why the appeal in

this case should not be dismissed as the judgment at issue is not appealable. The

Defendant failed to submit a response to the rule to show cause.

The proper procedural vehicle for the Defendant to seek review of the

proceedings stemming from his misdemeanor charge is via supervisory writs. La.Code

Crim.P. art. 912.1. Therefore, the appeal in this case is hereby dismissed. The

Defendant-Appellant, Carl E. Polk, is hereby permitted to file a proper application for

supervisory writs in compliance with Uniform Rules—Court of Appeal, Rule 4, no

later than thirty days from the date of this decision. The Defendant 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.

1

APPEAL DISMISSED. DEFENDANT-APPELLANT IS PERMITTED TO

FILE AN APPLICATION FOR SUPERVISORY WRITS WITHIN THIRTY

DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS DECISION.

2