State of Louisiana v. Barry Cirtain

STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

10-140

STATE OF LOUISIANA

VERSUS

BARRY CIRTAIN

************

APPEAL FROM THE
THIRTY-THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF ALLEN, NO. CR-09-1724
HONORABLE PATRICIA C. COLE, DISTRICT JUDGE

************

MARC T. AMY
JUDGE

************

Court composed of John D. Saunders, Marc T. Amy, and James T. Genovese, Judges.

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

Hon. Hebert Todd Nesom
District Attorney, 33rd JDC
P.O. Box 839
Oberlin, LA 70655
(337) 639-2641

Hon. Roderick Gregory Bertrand
Asst. District Attorney, 33rd JDC
P.O. Box 839
Oberlin, LA 70655
(337) 639-2641
COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE:
State of Louisiana

Chad B. Guidry
Attorney at Law
P. O. Box 447
Kinder, LA 70648
(337) 738-2280
COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT:
Barry Cirtain

Amy, J.

On September 17, 2009, after a bench trial, the trial court convicted the

Defendant, Barry Cirtain, of second offense driving while intoxicated, a violation of

La.R.S. 14:98, and simple obstruction of a highway, a violation of La.R.S. 14:97.

The trial court then sentenced the Defendant on November 30, 2009, to six months

in the parish jail, with all but 48 hours suspended, to be served without benefit of

probation, parole or suspension of sentence. Defendant filed a Motion for Appeal on

December 4, 2009, and the trial court granted that appeal. Thereafter, this court

issued a rule to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed as not appealable.

In response, the Defendant filed a motion in this court acknowledging that he was not

entitled to an appeal and requesting that this court convert his improperly filed appeal

to a writ application.

The judgment at issue is not appealable. La.Code Crim.P. art. 912.1. That

being the case, we hereby dismiss the Defendant’s appeal. However, the Defendant

may seek supervisory writs within thirty days of the date of this decision. The

Defendant is not required to file a notice of intent to seek writs nor obtain an order

from the trial court setting a return date as is generally required by Uniform

Rules—Courts of Appeal, Rule 4-3. We construe the motion for appeal as a timely

filed notice of intent to seek a supervisory writ.

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