STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS ROBERT BROUSSARD
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT 15-528 STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS ROBERT L. BROUSSARD ************ APPEAL FROM THE CITY COURT OF NEW IBERIA PARISH OF IBERIA, NO. 201402992 HONORABLE THEODORE M. HAIK, III, DISTRICT JUDGE ************ JAMES T. GENOVESE JUDGE ************ Court composed John D. Saunders, James T. Genovese, 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. Anne G. Stevens City of New Iberia 457 E. Main Street, Room 202 New Iberia, LA 70560 (337) 369-2333 COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE: State of Louisiana R. Michael Moity, Jr. The Moity Law Firm 340 Weeks Street New Iberia, LA 70560 (337) 365-5529 COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT: Robert L. Broussard Genovese, Judge. Defendant-Appellant, Robert L. Broussard, was convicted of OWI second offense, in violation of La.R.S. 14:98A(1)(a), and excessive noise, in violation of City Ordinance 513-96, 58-75, on March 4, 2015. Relator was ordered to pay a $1,000.00 fine plus court courts or, in default of payment, ten days in jail; sentenced to 125 days in the parish jail, all but seven days suspended; thirty 8-hour days of community service; upon release, Relator to be placed on supervised probation for an eighteen-month period on the charge of OWI second offense. Relator was ordered to pay a $250.00 fine or, in default of payment, ten days in the parish jail and pay a $200.00 witness fee on the charge of excessive noise. Relator filed a “NOTICE OF SUSPENSIVE APPEAL” with the trial court on March 12, 2015. The trial court issued an “ORDER OF APPEAL” on March 17, 2015, ruling, “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a Suspensive Appeal be granted to Robert Broussard, execution of sentence be stayed, and that post conviction bail be set at $25,000.00.” On June 8, 2015, this court lodged the appeal record for this case. On July 2, 2015, this court issued a rule to show cause why this matter should not be dismissed as non-appealable, since the offenses at issue are misdemeanors. On July 15, 2015, Defendant-Appellant responded, requesting the following: 1. Convert the Order of Appeal to the request “to seek supervisory writs”; 2. Grant leave for Appellant to obtain a [sic] Order granting a supervisory writ by the City Court Judge; and 3. Consider the matter as an appeal requiring a published opinion as there are novel issues of law and fact. The appeal is dismissed, as the offenses are non-appealable. The request to convert the appeal to a writ is denied, but Defendant-Appellant is hereby permitted 1 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. 2 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.
