KA-0012-1018 Nonprecedential Processed

State of Louisiana v. Gerald Neal Babineaux

Louisiana Court of Appeal, Third Circuit · Filed November 14, 2012

Opinion text

12-1018

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

APPEAL FROM THE
TWENTY-SEVENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF ST. LANDRY, NO. 98-K-0219-B
HONORABLE ELLIS J. DAIGLE, DISTRICT JUDGE

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

OSWALD A. DECUIR
JUDGE

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

Court composed of Oswald A. Decuir, Elizabeth A. Pickett, and Phyllis M. Keaty,
Judges.

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

Earl B. Taylor
District Attorney - 27th JDC
P. O. Box 750
Opelousas, LA 70571
(337) 948-3041
COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE:
State of Louisiana

Thomas J. Thompson
Attorney at Law
8558 Sligo Road
St. Francisville, LA 70775
COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT
Gerald Neal Babineaux

Decuir, Judge.

On February 25, 1999, the Defendant, Gerald Neal Babineaux, was

convicted of manslaughter, and on May 17, 1999, he was sentenced to forty years

at hard labor. On June 27, 2011, the Defendant filed an application for post-

conviction relief which was denied on August 8, 2012.

On August 20, 2012, the Defendant filed a “Notice of Intent to Appeal

Court’s Decision and Request for Transcript and a Return Date.” An appeal was

granted that day and was subsequently lodged with this court August 31, 2012. On

September 7, 2012, this court issued an order requiring the Defendant to show

cause why the appeal should not be dismissed as the judgment at issue is not an

appealable judgment. The Defendant responded, acknowledging that the matter is

not appealable. He requested that this court treat the matter as a writ of review and

remand the case for a full evidentiary hearing in the trial court.

The judgment at issue is not appealable. See La.Code Crim.P. art. 930.6.

Accordingly, we hereby dismiss the Defendant’s appeal. The Defendant may seek

supervisory writs within thirty (30) days of the date of this decision. The

Defendant is not required to file a notice of intent to seek writs, nor must he 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