State of Louisiana v. Theodore Batiste

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

14-885

STATE OF LOUISIANA

VERSUS

THEODORE BATISTE

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

APPEAL FROM THE
TWELFTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF AVOYELLES, NO. 86955
HONORABLE WILLIAM BENNETT, DISTRICT JUDGE

************
MARC T. AMY
JUDGE

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

Court composed of John D. Saunders, Marc T. Amy, and J. David Painter, 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
Assistant District Attorney
P.O. Box 1200
Marksville, LA 71351
(318) 253-6587
COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE:
State of Louisiana

Bridgett Brown
P.O. Box 1790
Alexandria, LA 71301
(318) 443-9000
COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT:
Theodore Batiste

Theodore Batiste
618 Tina Street
Marksville, LA 71351
Pro Se

Amy, Judge.

On March 27, 1996, Defendant-Appellant, Theodore Batiste, was charged by

bill of information with forcible rape, a violation of La.R.S. 14:42.1. On February

6, 1998, Defendant-Appellant entered a plea of guilty to the amended charge of

simple rape, reserving all rights to appeal. The trial court accepted Defendant-

Appellant’s plea and imposed an eighteen (18) month sentence without the benefit

of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence.

On April 8, 2014, Defendant-Appellant filed a “MOTION TO WITHDRAW

GUILY PLEA” with the trial court. After a hearing on April 22, 2014, the trial

court denied Defendant-Appellant’s “MOTION TO WITHDRAW GUILY PLEA”

on May 21, 2014.

On June 2, 2014, Defendant-Appellant filed a “Notice of Appeal” with the

trial court. On June 4, 2014, the trial court clerk’s office issued a “Notice of

Appeal” in the instant case, which indicated an “order of appeal was entered on

June 2, 2014.”

On August 28, 2014, this court lodged the appeal record. On September 3,

2014, 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. No response was received by counsel for Defendant-Appellant.

A pro se brief was received from Defendant-Appellant; however, the brief does not

address the issue of appealability of the judgment.

Accordingly, we hereby dismiss Defendant-Appellant’s appeal. Theodore

Batiste, 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 thirty days from the date of this decision. The Defendant is not

1

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 THIRTY

DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS DECISION.

2