Opinion
No. 07-360.
June 6, 2007. NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION.
APPEAL FROM THE THIRTY-THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF ALLEN, NO. 2002-4819, HONORABLE JOEL G. DAVIS, DISTRICT JUDGE.
Douglas L. Hebert, Jr., District Attorney, Oberlin, Louisiana, Counsel for: State of Louisiana.
Steve M. Sikich, The Sikich Law Firm, Lake Charles, LA, Counsel for Defendant/Appellant: Dellandra Brett Todd.
Court composed of OSWALD A. DECUIR, MARC T. AMY, and J. DAVID PAINTER, Judges.
On March 12, 2003, the Defendant, Dellandra Brett Todd, was convicted of one count of distribution of cocaine. He was sentenced to serve twenty-five years at hard labor, with the first two years to be served without the benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence. The Defendant's conviction and sentence were affirmed on appeal. State v. Todd, 03-1230 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2/4/04), 866 So.2d 1040, writ denied, 04-588 (La. 7/2/04), 877 So.2d 143.
On August 31, 2005, the Defendant filed an application for post-conviction relief and a motion requesting a hearing on the application. On December 5, 2005, a hearing was held. The matter was taken under advisement and a ruling was issued on November 29, 2006, denying the Defendant's application. The Defendant filed a motion for appeal which was granted; the Defendant subsequently filed an appeal with this court on March 22, 2007.
The correct procedural mechanism for review of a denial of an application for postconviction relief is an application for supervisory writs, not an appeal. La. Code Crim.P. art. 930.6. Therefore, this court issued a rule to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed. In response, the Defendant filed a Memorandum in Response to Rule to Show Cause and Memorandum in Support of Defendant's Appeal, or Alternatively, Memorandum in Support of Writ Application. The Defendant requests this court consider this appeal as a supervisory writ application in the interest of judicial economy. Because this judgment is not appealable, the appeal in this case is hereby dismissed. Further, we deny Defendant's request that we consider his appeal as a supervisory writ application.
However, the Defendant is 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 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 notice of intent to seek a supervisory writ.
APPEAL DISMISSED. THE DEFENDANT IS PERMITTED TO FILE AN APPLICATION FOR SUPERVISORY WRITS WITHIN THIRTY DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS DECISION.