State of Louisiana v. Joseph Lebleu Jr. A/K/A Joseph Floyd Lebleu, Jr.

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

18-557

STATE OF LOUISIANA

VERSUS

JOSEPH LEBLEU, JR.
A/K/A JOSEPH FLOYD LEBLEU, JR.

************
APPEAL FROM THE
THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF EVANGELINE, NO. 96690-F
HONORABLE CHUCK RANDALL WEST, DISTRICT JUDGE

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

BILLY H. EZELL
JUDGE

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

Court composed of Marc T. Amy, Billy H. Ezell, and Candyce G. Perret, Judges.

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

Trent Brignac
District Attorney – 13th JDC
Timmy James Fontenot
Assistant District Attorney
Nicole Fuselier Gil
Assistant District Attorney
P. O. Drawer 780
Ville Platte, LA 70586
(337) 363-3438
COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE:
State of Louisiana

Alex D. Chapman, Jr.
Attorney at Law
801 W. Lincoln Road
Ville Platte, LA 70586
(337) 363-2229

Gilbert J. Aucoin, II
Attorney at Law
153 S. Court Street
Ville Platte, LA 70586
(337) 363-2223

Jacob B. Fusilier
Fusilier & Associates
P. O. Box 528
Ville Platte, LA 70586
(337) 363-6661
COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT:
Joseph LeBleu, Jr.

Joseph LeBleu, Jr. – Pro Se
Caldwell Correctional Center
671 Hwy. 845
Grayson, LA 71435

Ezell, Judge.

On May 1, 2014, Defendant-Appellant, Joseph Lebleu, Jr., a/k/a Joseph

Floyd LeBleu, entered a guilty plea to one count of indecent behavior with

juveniles, along with two other counts charged under a separate docket number.

Defendant-Appellant received concurrent suspended sentences and five years of

active supervised probation. After a probation revocation hearing on March 25,

2015, the court ordered Defendant-Appellant to serve ninety days in parish jail. On

May 18, 2016, the district court conducted another probation revocation hearing

and again revoked his probation. Defendant-Appellant filed a motion to reinstate

his probation which was heard on September 21, 2016, and denied. Defendant-

Appellant again sought to reinstate his probation on April 19, 2017; the district

court again denied relief.

On May 16, 2018, the district court held a hearing regarding another request

by Defendant-Appellant to reinstate his probation; the district court denied relief at

the end of the hearing. On May 21, 2018, Defendant-Appellant filed a “Motion for

Reconsideration” which again sought to have his probation reinstated. On the

same date, Defendant-Appellant filed a Motion for Appeal. The district court

denied the motion for reconsideration in writing on June 4, 2018, and granted the

motion for appeal on the same date.

This court lodged the appeal record on July 16, 2018. On August 23, 2018,

this court issued a rule to show cause why this case should not be dismissed as

non-appealable. Defendant-Appellant filed a timely response but has failed to

address the issue of appealability.

According, the appeal is dismissed, as the judgment at issue is a probation

revocation ruling and thus not appealable. La.Code Crim.P. art. 912.1(C). State ex

rel. Clavelle v. State, 02-1244 (La. 12/12/03), 861 So.2d 186. 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 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