State of Louisiana v. Robert Prescott

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

14-1081

STATE OF LOUISIANA

VERSUS

ROBERT PRESCOTT

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

APPEAL FROM THE
SIXTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF ST. MARTIN, NO. 09-237546
HONORABLE VINCENT BORNE, DISTRICT JUDGE

************
JOHN D. SAUNDERS
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 FIFTEEN DAYS FROM
THE DATE OF THIS DECISION.

Angela Odinet
Assistant District Attorney - 16th JDC
415 S. Main Street
St. Martinville, Louisiana 70582
(337) 394-2220
COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE:
State of Louisiana

Peter “Q” John
The “Q” Firm, L.L.C.
10925 Perkins Road, Suite C
Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70810
(225) 757-8496
COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT:
Robert Prescott

Saunders, Judge.

Defendant-Appellant, Robert Prescott, was convicted of possession of 400 or

more grams of cocaine on March 11, 2011. On April 19, 2011, Relator was

sentenced to serve twenty-two years at hard labor, the first fifteen years to be

served without the benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence and to

pay a fine of $250,000.00.

On April 16, 2013, Relator filed a “UNIFORM APPLICATION FOR

PETITION FOR POST CONVICTION RELIEF” with the trial court. Relator

alleged that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. On May 23, 2014, an

evidentiary hearing was held; thereat, the trial court denied Relator’s application

for post-conviction relief. Relator filed a “MOTION AND NOTICE OF

APPEAL” with the trial court on May 30, 2014. The trial court granted Relator’s

motion on June 9, 2014. On October 16, 2014, this court lodged the appeal in this

case. On October 27, 2014, this court issued a rule to show cause why this matter

should not be dismissed, as the judgment at issue is not an appealable judgment.

La.Code Crim.P. art. 930.6.

On November 17, 2014, defense counsel filed a “BRIEF TO SHOW

CAUSE WHY THE APPEAL IN THIS CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED

ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT, ROBERT PRESCOTT” with this court,

asserting, “Mr. Prescott’s appeal should not be dismissed; rather it should be

treated as an application for supervisory review.”

The appeal is dismissed, as the judgment at issue is not an appealable

judgment. La.Code Crim.P. art. 930.6. 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

1

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.

2