Opinion
No. 14–KA–758.
10-29-2014
STATE of Louisiana v. Bamela KOUSSANTA.
Paul D. Connick, Jr., District Attorney, Terry M. Boudreaux, Assistant District Attorney, Gretna, Louisiana, for Plaintiff/Appellee. Roland A. Ditta, Attorney at Law, Gretna, LA, for Defendant/Appellant.
Paul D. Connick, Jr., District Attorney, Terry M. Boudreaux, Assistant District Attorney, Gretna, Louisiana, for Plaintiff/Appellee.
Roland A. Ditta, Attorney at Law, Gretna, LA, for Defendant/Appellant.
Panel composed of Judges SUSAN M. CHEHARDY, ROBERT M. MURPHY, and STEPHEN J. WINDHORST.
Opinion
ROBERT M. MURPHY, Judge.
Defendant, Bamela Koussanta, appeals his convictions for two counts of the misdemeanor offense of simple battery in violation of La. R.S. 14:35. Because defendant seeks review of his misdemeanor convictions for a crime not triable by jury, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
Appellate jurisdiction extends only to cases that are triable by a jury. State v. Lyons, 13–180, 13–181, 13–182, 13–183, 13–184, 13–185, 13–186 (La.App. 5 Cir. 10/9/13), 128 So.3d 407, 411 (citing La. Const. Art. 5 § 10 ; La.C.Cr. P. art. 912.1 ). “Unless the punishment that may be imposed exceeds six months imprisonment, a misdemeanor is not triable by a jury.” Id. (citing La. Const. Art. 1 § 17 ; La.C.Cr.P. art. 779 ).
Here, defendant was found guilty of simple battery, in violation of La. R.S. 14:35. La. R.S. 14:35(B) provides that, “[w]hoever commits a simple battery shall be fined not more than one thousand dollars or imprisoned for not more than six months, or both.” Because defendant was found guilty of a misdemeanor offense not triable by jury, this judgment is not an appealable judgment. See La.C.Cr.P. art. 779(B) ; State v. Flowers, 11–376 (La.App. 5 Cir. 12/13/11), 81 So.3d 910. Under La.C.Cr.P. art. 912.1(C)(1), an application for a writ of review is the proper mechanism for seeking judicial review of a conviction on an offense not triable by jury, such as simple battery. See Flowers, supra; La. Const. Art. 5 § 10.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, we dismiss the present appeal. We reserve, however, defendant's right to file a proper application for supervisory writs, in compliance with U.R.C.A. Rule 4–3, within thirty days from the date of this opinion. Further, we hereby construe defendant's notice of appeal as a notice of intent to seek a supervisory writ, so defendant is not required to file a notice of intent or to obtain an order setting a return date pursuant to U.R.C.A. Rule 4–3.