KA-0013-0258 Nonprecedential Denied Processed

State of Louisiana v. James Bertrand

Louisiana Court of Appeal, Third Circuit · Filed April 24, 2013

Opinion text

13-258

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

APPEAL FROM THE
THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF EVANGELINE, NO. 79492-FA
HONORABLE JOHN LARRY VIDRINE, DISTRICT JUDGE

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

PHYLLIS M. KEATY
JUDGE

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

Court composed of Elizabeth A. Pickett, Phyllis M. Keaty, and John E. Conery,
Judges.

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

Trent Brignac
District Attorney - 13th JDC
P.O. Box 780
Ville Platte, LA 70586
(337) 363-3438
COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE:
State of Louisiana

Glen Richard Petersen
Hymel, Davis & Petersen, LLC
10602 Coursey Boulevard
Baton Rouge, LA 70816
(225) 298-8118
COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT:
James Bertrand

Keaty, Judge.

Defendant-Appellant, James Bertrand, was convicted of criminal trespass, a

misdemeanor, on June 21, 2012. On the same date, he received a thirty-day

sentence, with fifteen days suspended; the court allowed him to remain on his

existing bond. He filed a motion to reconsider sentence in late June. On January

3, 2013, the trial court denied the motion; at the same proceeding, it granted a stay

in anticipation of an appeal. The trial court granted his written motion for appeal

on January 17.

On March 15, 2013, this court lodged the appeal record for this case. On

March 19, this court issued a rule to show cause why this matter should not be

dismissed as non-appealable, since the offense at issue is a misdemeanor.

On March 28, Defense counsel responded, acknowledging that the case is

non-appealable but requesting that the appeal be converted to a writ application.

Accordingly, the appeal in this case is hereby dismissed. The request to convert

the appeal to a writ is denied, but Defendant-Appellant is hereby permitted to file a

proper application for supervisory writs, in compliance with Uniform Rules—

Courts of Appeal, Rule 4, no later than fifteen days from the date of this decision.

Defendant is not required to file a notice of intent to seek writs nor 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 timely-filed notice of intent to seek a

supervisory writ.

APPEAL DISMISSED. DEFENDANT-APPELLANT IS PERMITTED TO

FILE AN APPLICATION FOR SUPERVISORY WRITS WITHIN FIFTEEN

DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS DECISION.