State of Louisiana v. Bryson Provost

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

16-1046

STATE OF LOUISIANA

VERSUS

BRYSON PROVOST

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

APPEAL FROM THE
SIXTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF IBERIA, NO. 13-1130
HONORABLE VINCENT BORNE, DISTRICT JUDGE

************
SHANNON J. GREMILLION
JUDGE
************

Court composed of John D. Saunders, Elizabeth A. Pickett, and Shannon J.
Gremillion, Judges.

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

M. Bofill Duhe′
District Attorney - 16th Judicial District
Nicole Burke, ADA
300 Iberia Street #200
New Iberia, LA 70560
(337) 369-4420
COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE:
State of Louisiana

Chad M. Ikerd
Louisiana Appellate Project
P.O. Box 2125
Lafayette, LA 70502
(225) 806-2930
COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT:
Bryson Provost

Gremillion, Judge.

On June 26, 2014, Defendant-Appellant, Bryson Provost, was charged by

bill of information with simple burglary, a violation of La.R.S. 14:62. On May 25,

2016, Defendant-Appellant was found guilty by a jury of simple burglary. On June

2, 2016, at a sentencing hearing, the trial court deferred Defendant-Appellant’s

sentence, pursuant to La.Code Crim.P. art. 893. Defendant-Appellant was placed

on a three-year term of active, intensified supervised probation subject to the

general conditions of La.Code Crim.P. art. 895(A), along with the following

special conditions of probation: report to the New Iberia Probation Office within

24 hours of sentencing hearing; report monthly, or as directed, to the probation

officer; pay a monthly $60.00 probation supervision fee; pay a $500.00 fine and

court costs over the period of probation; pay prosecution costs in the amount of

$500.00 within the first year of probation; pay the Public Defender’s Office

$500.00 for services rendered; pay investigation costs of $150.00 to the Iberia

Parish Sheriff’s Office; pay $45.00 to the Iberia Parish Sheriff’s Office drug

screening fund; pay restitution in the amount of $40.00 to the victim; perform 40

hours of community service within one year of probation or within the first year of

probation; submit to and pay for random drug screens at the direction of the

probation officer during the period of probation; remain drug and alcohol free

during the period of probation; stay out of bars and away from illicit drug and

substance abusers; and remain continually and gainfully employed or a full-time

student. The trial court also ordered Defendant/Appellant to have no contact with

the victim or the witnesses. The trial court further stated the Defendant

acknowledged notice of intent of the District Attorney’s Office to seek a civil

money judgment, in accordance with La.Code Crim.P. art. 886.1, if

Defendant/Appellant fails to pay the fine, court costs, and prosecution cost within

sixty days of imposition of sentence. Defendant/Appellant was ordered to pay

$100.00 to the Sixteenth Judicial District Attorney’s Office judicial expense fund

for non-payment. Upon completion of all special conditions and after one year of

supervised probation, Defendant-Appellant is to be placed on unsupervised

probation.

On November 30, 2015, Defendant-Appellant filed a “MOTION FOR NEW

TRIAL” and a “MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR NEW

TRIAL” with the trial court. Defendant-Appellant asked the trial court to “grant

this motion, and after a hearing on the merits to grant a new trial vacating the

conviction previously imposed.” Subsequently, an evidentiary hearing was held on

December 1, 2015; thereat, the trial court denied Defendant-Appellant’s Motion

for New Trial.

On June 6, 2016, Defendant-Appellant filed a “MOTION FOR APPEAL

AND WITHDRAWAL AS COUNSEL OF RECORD” with the trial court. The

trial court granted Defendant-Appellant’s motion on June 9, 2016.

On December 20, 2016, this court lodged the appeal record. On January 6,

2017, 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 since imposition

of sentence was deferred. La.Code Crim.P. art. 912(A) and (C)(1).

On January 27, 2014, Defendant-Appellant’s brief was “FILED IN

RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE APPEAL SHOULD

NOT BE DISMISSED” with this court. Defendant-Appellant’s counsel responded,

acknowledging that the case is non-appealable and that “this Court should give

Bryson time to apply for a supervisory writ of review to determine whether there

were reversible errors or insufficient evidence in this case.”
2

Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure Article 912(C)(1) permits an appeal

by a defendant from a judgment which imposes a sentence which did not occur

since the trial court “defer[red] the imposition of sentence” in this case.

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

THIRTY DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS DECISION.

3