State of Louisiana v. Gregory Lee Sampson

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

11-228

STATE OF LOUISIANA

VERSUS

GREGORY LEE SAMPSON

************
APPEAL FROM THE
NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF RAPIDES, NO. 253,630
HONORABLE JOHN C. DAVIDSON, JUDGE
************

SYLVIA R. COOKS
JUDGE

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

Court composed of Ulysses Gene Thibodeaux, Chief Judge, Sylvia R. Cooks, and
John D. Saunders, Judges.

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

Hon. James C. Downs
District Attorney - 9th JDC
701 Murray Street
Alexandria, LA 71301
(318) 473-6650

Monique Yvette Metoyer
ADA - 9th JDC
P.O. Drawer 1472
Alexandria, LA 71309-1472
(318) 473-6650
COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE:
State of Louisiana

Paula Corley Marx
Louisiana Appellate Project
P.O. Box 80006
Lafayette, LA 70598-0006
(337) 991-9757
COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT:
Gregory Lee Sampson

Cooks, Judge.

On May 15, 2001, the Defendant, Gregory Lee Sampson, was found guilty

of the offense of attempted armed robbery, violations of La.R.S. 14:64 and 14:27.

The trial court sentenced the Defendant to twenty-five years at hard labor, without

benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence on May 18, 2001. This

court affirmed Defendant’s conviction and held the sentence was not excessive.

State v. Sampson, an unpublished opinion bearing docket number 01-1133

(La.App. 3 Cir. 4/10/02), writ denied, 02-1323 (La. 11/27/02), 831 So.2d 270.

However, this court vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing because

three days had not passed between his conviction and his sentencing as required by

La.Code Crim.P. art. 873.

Defendant filed a motion to quash on November 10, 2009 pursuant to

La.Code Crim.P. art. 874 on grounds his sentence had been unreasonably delayed.

The trial court denied that motion on September 29, 2010 and resentenced

Defendant to twenty-five years at hard labor, without benefit of parole, probation,

or suspension of sentence, and with credit for time served. Defendant made an oral

motion for appeal when his sentence was announced. He also filed a notice of

intent to apply for a supervisory writ on September 30, 2010, and the court granted

his order allowing the filing “according to law.” Defendant, however, did not file a

writ application with this court.

Instead, Defendant also filed a written motion for appeal on December 9,

2010, designating the portions of the record dealing with his sentencing and

resentencing. His appellant brief assigned as error the trial court’s denial of his

motion to quash.

On June 2, 2011, this court issued a rule to show cause why the appeal

should not be dismissed as the judgment at issue is not appealable pursuant to

La.Code Crim.P. arts. 874 and 912.1. Defendant submitted a response arguing his

resentencing on September 29, 2010 is a proper subject for appeal, as is the legality

of that sentencing. Alternatively, he asks this court to consider the appeal to be a

writ application and review the merits of the claim.

The judgment at issue is not appealable. See La.Code Crim.P. arts. 874 and

912.1. Accordingly, we hereby dismiss the Defendant’s appeal. However, the

Defendant may seek supervisory writs from the trial court’s ruling. The Defendant

is neither required to file 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 oral motion for appeal made on September

29, 2010 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 OF THE DATE OF THIS DECISION.

2