KA-0009-0138 Nonprecedential Processed

State of Louisiana v. Eddy D. Sigler

Louisiana Court of Appeal, Third Circuit · Filed June 3, 2009

Opinion text

**********

APPEAL FROM THE
THIRTIETH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF VERNON, NO. 74994-995
HONORABLE JOHN C. FORD

**********

MICHAEL G. SULLIVAN
JUDGE

**********

Court composed of Jimmie C. Peters, Michael G. Sullivan, and Billy H. Ezell, Judges.

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

Hon. William E. Tilley
District Attorney, 30th JDC
P. O. Box 1188
Leesville, LA 71496-1188
(337) 239-2008
COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE:
State of Louisiana

Hon. Mitchel M. Evans
Attorney at Law
P. O. Drawer 28
DeRidder, LA 70634
(337) 462-5225
COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT:
Eddy D. Sigler

Sullivan, Judge.

The Defendant, Eddy P. Sigler, was charged in separate charging instruments with

driving while intoxicated under La.R.S. 14:98(J) (district court docket number 74994), and

careless operation, a violation of La.R.S. 32:58 (district court docket number 74995). On

October 24, 2008, the cases were heard together, and the trial court found the Defendant

guilty of violating La.R.S. 14:98(J), but acquitted the Defendant on the remaining charge.

The Defendant was sentenced to a fine of $200.00 and sixty days in the parish jail,

suspended and placed on six months of probation with conditions of probation imposed.

On November 3, 2008, the Defendant filed an appeal listing both district court docket

numbers, which was granted on October 29, 2008.

On February 4, 2009, 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 was not appealable.

No response was received.

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. See, e.g., State

v. Palmer, 08-517 (La. 4/3/09), ___ So._d ___.1

The Defendant-Appellant 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 (30) 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 timely

filed notice of intent to seek a supervisory writ.

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

1
Palmer, 2009 WL 885374. A blank is used for the edition of Southern Reporter
since that reporter recently began a third edition.