State of Louisiana v. Robert Kaltenbach

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

13-859

STATE OF LOUISIANA

VERSUS

ROBERT KALTENBACH

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

APPEAL FROM THE
SIXTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF ST. MARTIN, NO. TR-12-93580
HONORABLE PAUL J. DEMAHY, DISTRICT JUDGE

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

JIMMIE C. PETERS
JUDGE

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

Court composed of Jimmie C. Peters, Marc T. Amy, and Elizabeth A. Pickett,
Judges.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

J. Phillip Haney
District Attorney - 16th JDC
415 S. Main Street
St. Martinville, LA 70582
(337) 394-2220
COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE:
State of Louisiana

Robert Kaltenbach
In Proper Person
1334 Division Road
Arnaudville, LA 70512
COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT:
Robert Kaltenbach

Judge Peters,

On or about December 6, 2012, Defendant, Robert Kaltenbach, was charged

in St. Martin Parish with No Seat Belt, by improperly wearing of the same, in

violation of La.R.S. 32:295.1.

On December 18, 2012, Defendant, Robert Kaltenbach, entered a plea of not

guilty to the charge of no seat belt. The matter was set for trial on March 6, 2013.

On the day of trial, Defendant asserted “I’m not here for a trial, I’m here to

challenge jurisdiction.” Defendant alleged that filed three (3) applications for an

administrative hearing. The State asserted, “Jurisdiction rest with the District

Court, which is the court of general jurisdiction. The violation is alleged to have

occurred in St. Martin Parish which is the proper venue.” The trial court denied

Defendant’s exception to the jurisdiction of the court. Defendant made an oral

motion for appeal. The court ruled, “All right. Then I will continue this trial to

May 8th to give you the opportunity to file a writ with the Third Circuit Court of

Appeals challenging the jurisdiction of the court.”

On March 8, 2013, Defendant filed a “Notice of Criminal Appeal” with the

trial court and an “application for a free transcript and the reasons to declare

property.” On March 8, 2013, the trial court granted both Defendant’s notice with a

return date of May 8, 2013, and the application for transcript.

On July 30, 2013, this court issued a rule to show cause why the appeal

should not be dismissed as the judgment is non-appealable. In Defendant’s

response received in this court on August 5, 2013, he concedes that the ruling of

which he seeks relief in not properly before this court on appeal and seeks to

convert his appeal to an application for supervisory writ.

The judgment at issue is not appealable. See La.Code Crim.P. art. 912.

Accordingly, we hereby dismiss Defendant’s appeal. Normally, this court would

allow Defendant the opportunity of filing a supervisory writ application, however,

this court received a supervisory writ application seeking review of the judgment at

issue in this appeal from Defendant on July 29, 2013, and a ruling was rendered on

the writ application on August 8, 2013. State v. Kaltenbach, 13-860 (La.App. 3

Cir. 8/8/13) (unpublished opinion).

APPEAL DISMISSED.

2