STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS ROBERT KALTENBACH
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT 14-1064 STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS ROBERT KALTENBACH ************ APPEAL FROM THE SIXTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF ST. MARTIN, NO. 12-093580 HONORABLE LORI LANDRY, DISTRICT JUDGE ************ SYLVIA R. COOKS JUDGE ************ Court composed Sylvia R. Cooks, Billy H. Ezell, and Shannon J. Gremillion, Judges. APPEAL DISMISSED. DEFENDANT-APPELLANT IS PERMITTED TO FILE AN APPLICATION FOR SUPERVISORY WRITS WITHIN FIFTEEN DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS DECISION. Nicholas Markowich District Attorney’s Office - 16th JDC 415 S. Main Street St. Martinville, LA 70582 (337) 394-2220 COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE: State of Louisiana Robert Kalenbach c/o 1334 Division Road Arnaudville, LA 70512 APPELLANT Cooks, Judge. Defendant-Appellant, Robert Kaltenbach, was convicted of failure to buckle seat belt, a misdemeanor, in violation of La.R.S. 32:295.1, on May 14, 2014. On the same date, he received a fine of twenty-five dollars or serve twenty-four hours in jail. Relator filed a notice of appeal with the trial court on May 22, 2014. The trial court granted his written motion for appeal on May 27, 2014. On October 10, 2014, this court lodged the appeal record for this case. On October 15, 2014, this court issued a rule to show cause why this matter should not be dismissed as non-appealable, since the offense at issue is a misdemeanor. On October 21 2014, Defendant-Appellant responded, asserting, “[a]ppeal is the remedy to correct the record other than a collateral attack for inconsistencies of due process and violation of constitutional rights. It is a settled and invariable principle in the law of the land that every right trespassed upon must have a remedy and every injury its proper redress. This court is obligated to provide a remedy via an appeal.” The appeal is dismissed, as the offense is non-appealable. See La.Code Crim.P. arts. 912.1 and 779. Defendant-Appellant is hereby permitted to file a proper application for supervisory writs, in compliance with Uniform Rules—Courts of Appeal, Rule 4, within fifteen days from the date of this 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 FIFTEEN DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS DECISION. WITHIN
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
