STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS GERALD NEAL BABINEAUX
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT 12-1018 STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS GERALD NEAL BABINEAUX ************ APPEAL FROM THE TWENTY-SEVENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF ST. LANDRY, NO. 98-K-0219-B HONORABLE ELLIS J. DAIGLE, DISTRICT JUDGE ************ OSWALD A. DECUIR JUDGE ************ Court composed of Oswald A. Decuir, Elizabeth A. Pickett, and Phyllis M. Keaty, Judges. APPEAL DISMISSED. THE DEFENDANT IS PERMITTED TO FILE AN APPLICATION FOR SUPERVISORY WRITS WITHIN THIRTY DAYS OF THE DATE OF THIS OPINION. Earl B. Taylor District Attorney - 27th JDC P. O. Box 750 Opelousas, LA 70571 (337) 948-3041 COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE: State of Louisiana Thomas J. Thompson Attorney at Law 8558 Sligo Road St. Francisville, LA 70775 COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT Gerald Neal Babineaux Decuir, Judge. On February 25, 1999, the Defendant, Gerald Neal Babineaux, was convicted of manslaughter, and on May 17, 1999, he was sentenced to forty years at hard labor. On June 27, 2011, the Defendant filed an application for postconviction relief which was denied on August 8, 2012. On August 20, 2012, the Defendant filed a Notice of Intent to Appeal Court s Decision and Request for Transcript and a Return Date. An appeal was granted that day and was subsequently lodged with this court August 31, 2012. On September 7, 2012, this court issued an order requiring the Defendant to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed as the judgment at issue is not an appealable judgment. The Defendant responded, acknowledging that the matter is not appealable. He requested that this court treat the matter as a writ of review and remand the case for a full evidentiary hearing in the trial court. The judgment at issue is not appealable. See La.Code Crim.P. art. 930.6. Accordingly, we hereby dismiss the Defendant s appeal. The Defendant may seek supervisory writs within thirty (30) days of the date of this decision. The Defendant is not required to file a notice of intent to seek writs, nor must he obtain an order from the trial court setting a return date, as is generally required by Uniform Rulesï ¾Courts of Appeal, Rule 4-3. We construe the motion for appeal as a timely-filed notice of intent to seek a supervisory writ. APPEAL DISMISSED. THE DEFENDANT IS PERMITTED TO FILE AN APPLICATION FOR SUPERVISORY WRITS WITHIN THIRTY DAYS OF THE DATE OF THIS OPINION. 2
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.
