State of Louisiana v. Donald Edmond Domingue AKA - Don Domingues

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

13-1133

STATE OF LOUISIANA

VERSUS

DONALD EDMOND DOMINGUE
aka DON DOMINGUES

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

APPEAL FROM THE
FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF LAFAYETTE, NO. CR 130430
HONORABLE EDWARD D. RUBIN, DISTRICT JUDGE

************
SYLVIA R. COOKS
JUDGE
************

Court composed of Sylvia R. Cooks, Marc T. Amy, and James T. Genovese,
Judges.

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

Michael Harson
District Attorney
P.O. Box 3306
Lafayette, LA 70502
(337) 232-5170
COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE:
State of Louisiana

Adam G. Young
c/o Young and Cotter, L.L.C.
315 South College Road, Suite 163
Lafayette, LA 70503
(337) 261-8800
COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT:
Donald Edmond Domingue

Cooks, Judge.

On September 9, 2010, Defendant-Appellant, Donald Edmond Domingue

aka Don Domingues, was charged by bill of information with cyberstalking, a

violation of La.R.S. 14:40.3. On May 17, 2013, Defendant-Appellant entered a

Crosby plea to the amended charge of criminal mischief, reserving all rights to

appeal. The trial court accepted Defendant-Appellant‟s plea and imposed the

following conditions: (1) Pay a fine of $100.00; (2) Pay court cost of $242.50 in

full by June 16, 2013; (3) No contact with the victim; and (4) In default of these

conditions, he is to serve 10 days in the parish jail.

On August 10, 2012, Defendant-Appellant filed a “MOTION & ORDER TO

QUASH BILL OF INFORMATION” with the trial court, asserting that “La.R.S.

40:40.3, „Cyber-stalking,‟ is invalid as it violates the First Amendment of the

Constitution because the law is substantially overbroad.” After a hearing on March

15, 2013, the trial court denied Defendant-Appellant‟s “MOTION & ORDER TO

QUASH BILL OF INFORMATION” on June 12, 2013. Defendant-Appellant filed

a “Motion to Reconsider” with the trial court on April 1, 2013. The trial court

denied Defendant-Appellant‟s “Motion to Reconsider” on April 15, 2013.

On June 4, 2013, Defendant-Appellant filed a “Motion for Appeal” with the

trial court. On June 5, 2013, the trial court granted Defendant-Appellant‟s motion.

On October 3, 2013, this court lodged the appeal record. On October 4,

2013, this court issued a rule to show cause why the appeal should not be

dismissed as the judgment at issue is not an appealable judgment. See La.Code

Crim.P. art. 912(B)(1) and (C)(1), La.Code Crim.P. art 779, and La.R.S. 14:59(B).

No response was received by Defendant-Appellant.

Accordingly, we hereby dismiss Defendant-Appellant‟s appeal. Donald

Edmond Dominugue, 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. The

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.