State of Louisiana v. Paul Carter

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

07-296

STATE OF LOUISIANA

VERSUS

PAUL CARTER

**********

APPEAL FROM THE
FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF LAFAYETTE, NO. 106,340
HONORABLE HERMAN C. CLAUSE, DISTRICT JUDGE

**********

MICHAEL G. SULLIVAN
JUDGE

**********

Court composed of Michael G. Sullivan, Glenn B. Gremillion, and James T.
Genovese, Judges.

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

Michael Harson
District Attorney
Post Office Box 3306
Lafayette, Louisiana 70502-3306
(337) 232-5170
Counsel for:
State of Louisiana

Jermaine D. Williams
Pride J. Doran
Williams & Doran, PLLC
1313 Lafayette Street
Lafayette, Louisiana 70501
(337) 235-3989
Counsel for Defendant/Appellant:
Paul Carter

SULLIVAN, Judge.

On September 27, 1988, Defendant, Paul Carter, pled guilty to two counts of

forcible rape. He received two forty-year sentences at hard labor without benefit of

probation, parole, or suspension of sentence on each count, which were ordered to run

concurrently.

On April 20, 2005, Defendant was indicted for the offense of aggravated rape,

which is alleged to have taken place on or about July 26, 1986. Defendant filed a

Motion to Quash on the Basis of Double Jeopardy, alleging that the crime for which

he was indicted was included in his September 26, 1988 plea agreement. Defendant’s

plea agreement contained the following provision:

All other pending active criminal charges are to be dismissed against
him, including two aggravated burglaries and aggravated rapes, and
some other simple burglaries. In addition, there are also pending and
under investigation some twenty to thirty some odd burglaries in which
Mr. Carter is a suspect, and those will not be proceeded with as well.

After a hearing, the trial court denied the Motion. Defendant then filed a notice of

appeal, which the trial court granted; he filed this appeal on March 8, 2007.

The correct procedural mechanism for review of a denial of a motion to quash

is an application for supervisory writs, not an appeal. La.Code Crim.P. art. 912.1; see

also, State v. Williams, 99-216 (La.App. 5 Cir. 7/27/99), 740 So.2d 225. Therefore,

this court issued a rule to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed. In

response, Defendant filed a Motion to Convert Appeal to Request for Supervisory

Writs with this court. Because this judgment is not appealable, the appeal in this case

is hereby dismissed. Further, we deny Defendant’s request that we convert his appeal

to a supervisory writ application. However, Defendant is permitted to file a proper

application for supervisory writs, in compliance with Uniform Rules—Courts of

Appeal, Rule 4, no later than thirty days from the date of this decision. He is not

required to file a notice of intent to seek writs or to 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 notice of intent to seek a supervisory writ.

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

This opinion is NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION.
Uniform Rules—Courts of Appeal. Rule 2-16.3.