State of Louisiana v. Jeremy Ryan Scarborough

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

11-973

STATE OF LOUISIANA

VERSUS

JEREMY RYAN SCARBOROUGH

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

APPEAL FROM THE
NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF RAPIDES, NO. 304,673
HONORABLE JOHN C. DAVIDSON, DISTRICT JUDGE

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

PHYLLIS M. KEATY
JUDGE

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

Court composed of Elizabeth A. Pickett, Shannon J. Gremillion, and Phyllis M.
Keaty, Judges.

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

James C. Downs
District Attorney
701 Murray Street
Alexandria, Louisiana 71301
(318) 473-6650
Counsel for:
State of Louisiana

Mark O. Foster
Louisiana Appellate Project
222 Adelaide Street
Natchitoches, Louisiana 71457
(318) 572-5690
Counsel for Defendant/Appellant:
Jeremy Ryan Scarborough

KEATY, Judge.

Defendant, Jeremy Ryan Scarborough, was charged on December 8, 2010,

with second degree battery, a violation of La.R.S. 14:34.1. He pled guilty to the

charge on March 3, 2011, and was sentenced to serve five years with the Louisiana

Department of Corrections, suspended, and placed on supervised probation for five

years. Conditions of probation included payment of a fine of $500 plus court

costs; that he refrain from use of alcohol and controlled dangerous substances; that

he not visit bars, lounges, or casinos; and that he refrain from any criminal

conduct.

On April 18, 2011, Defendant appeared for a probation revocation hearing

and admitted to the State’s allegations, which included theft of a firearm,

possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, and testing positive for marijuana.

His probation was revoked. He was ordered to serve the sentence originally

imposed on March 3, 2011. He was given credit for time served and recommended

for participation in the Impact Program. On May 18, 2011, Defendant filed a

motion for appeal, stating, in part: “The Defendant was convicted around April

18th 2011 related to His charge under (R.S. 14:34.1.) [sic] Second Degree Battery,

sentenced to five (5) years and committed to the Department of Corrections.”

The motion was granted by the trial court, and the Louisiana Appellate

Project was appointed as counsel for Defendant. On August 5, 2011, the appeal

was lodged in this court and assigned docket number 11-973. On August 9, 2011,

this court issued an order to Defendant to show cause why his appeal should not be

dismissed “as the judgment referenced by date only, in the motion for appeal, a

probation revocation, is not an appealable judgment. La.Code Crim.P. art. 912.”

In State ex rel. Clavelle v. State, 02-1244 (La. 12/12/03), 861 So.2d 186,

187, the court explained that “[n]o appeal lies from an order revoking probation”

and supervisory review provides a direct means for contesting the trial court’s

action in a probation revocation proceeding. Under Uniform Rules—Courts of

Appeal, Rule 4−3, Defendant had thirty days from the ruling revoking his

probation, unless the trial court granted an extension, to file a supervisory writ

seeking review of his probation revocation.

Counsel for Defendant presents a novel argument. He notes that Defendant,

in his pro se appeal, states that he was convicted “around” April 18, 2011, “related

to his conviction under (R.S. 14:34.1.)” He also points out that Defendant alleged

that his conviction was unconstitutional. He then argues that Defendant was

actually referring to his original conviction date of March 3, 2011, which was

“around” April 18, 2011, as being the subject of the appeal. Counsel points to

jurisprudence stating that when pleadings are inarticulate they should be liberally

construed to protect a party’s constitutional rights. It is clear from Defendant’s

motion for appeal that he sought review, not of his original conviction, but of the

imposition of sentence at the time of revocation of his probation. Defendant could

only seek review of that ruling by application for supervisory writs.

Defendant’s motion for appeal was filed within thirty days of the ruling on

the probation revocation. As that judgment is properly reviewable by an

application for supervisory writs, he 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. We hereby construe the

motion for appeal as a 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.

2