KA-0007-0783 Nonprecedential Processed

State of Louisiana v. Wayne Prater

Louisiana Court of Appeal, Third Circuit · Filed August 8, 2007

Opinion text

**********

APPEAL FROM THE
THIRTY-THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF ALLEN, NO. CR-2007-0523
HONORABLE JOEL GERARD DAVIS

**********

MARC T. AMY
JUDGE

**********

Court composed of John D. Saunders, Marc T. Amy, and Glenn B. Gremillion,
Judges.

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

Hon. Douglas L. Hebert, Jr.
District Attorney, 33rd JDC
P. O. Drawer 839
Oberlin, LA 70655
(337) 639-2641
COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE:
State of Louisiana

Wayne Prater
179 Pinewood Village Drive
Kinder, LA 70648
(337) 433-1621
PRO SE

Amy, Judge.

On April 12, 2007, the Defendant, Wayne Prater, was found guilty of reckless

operation of a vehicle following a bench trial and was sentenced to serve thirty days

in the parish jail, suspended, six months supervised probation and ordered to pay

restitution as a special condition of probation. The Defendant thereafter orally

motioned the trial court for an appeal which was subsequently granted.

On June 25, 2007, this court issued a rule to show cause why the appeal in the

above-captioned case should not be dismissed, as the judgment at issue is not

appealable. The Defendant filed a document by the July 16, 2007 deadline, but the

document was not in proper form and was returned for an original signature in

compliance with the rules of court. The original document with an original signature

was received on July 26, 2007. However, the information set forth in the Defendant’s

documentation did not provide a legal basis why this appeal should not be dismissed.

The judgment at issue herein is not appealable, pursuant to La.Code Crim.P. art.

912.1, therefore, the appeal in the above-captioned case is hereby dismissed. Wayne

Prater, Defendant, is hereby 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. The Defendant is not required to file a

notice of intent to seek writs or 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. DEFENDANT IS PERMITTED TO FILE AN

APPLICATION FOR SUPERVISORY WRITS WITHIN THIRTY DAYS

FROM THE DATE OF THIS DECISION.