State of Louisiana v. Kevin Kyle

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

11-1284

STATE OF LOUISIANA

VERSUS

KEVIN KYLE

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

APPEAL FROM THE
TWELFTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF AVOYELLES, NO. 148551
HONORABLE WILLIAM BENNETT, DISTRICT JUDGE

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

JOHN D. SAUNDERS
JUDGE

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

Court composed of John D. Saunders, J. David Painter, and James T. Genovese,
Judges.

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

Charles A. Riddle, III
District Attorney - 12th JDC
P.O. Box 1200
Marksville, LA 71351
(318) 253-6587
COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE:
State of Louisiana

Bridgette Elaine Brown
Attorney at Law
P.O. Box 1790
Alexandria, LA 71301
(318) 443-9000
COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE:
Kevin Kyle

Saunders, Judge.

On February 15, 2011, Defendant, Kevin Kyle, was convicted of possession

of cocaine and placed on probation. On February 28, 2011, a detainer notification

and affidavit of probable cause and motion for hearing to revoke the probation of

Defendant were filed.

On June 14, 2011, a hearing was conducted on the motion. On June 24,

2011, the trial court ordered Defendant’s probation revoked, and he was ordered to

serve the originally-imposed sentence of three years in the custody of the

Louisiana Department of Corrections, with credit for time served.

Defendant filed a motion to reconsider sentence on July 15, 2011, which was

denied on July 18, 2011. On August 5, 2011, Defendant filed a motion for appeal

and designation of record. After filing of the appeal in this court, a rule to show

cause why the appeal should not be dismissed, noting that “the judgment at issue is

not an appealable judgment,” was issued.

On November 14, 2011, Defendant’s brief in response to the rule to show

cause was filed with this court. Defendant, in brief, does not address the issue of

whether the judgment is appealable. Rather, he presents arguments addressing the

merits of the revocation of his probation.

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

Accordingly, we hereby dismiss the Defendant’s appeal. 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 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