State v. Foret
| Decision Date | 14 March 2014 |
| Docket Number | No. 2014–CA–0257.,2014–CA–0257. |
| Citation | 136 So.3d 792 |
| Parties | STATE of Louisiana v. Lynn E. FORET, M.D. |
| Court | Louisiana Supreme Court |
136 So.3d 792
STATE of Louisiana
v.
Lynn E. FORET, M.D.
No. 2014–CA–0257.
Supreme Court of Louisiana.
March 14, 2014.
In re: State of Louisiana;—Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. O, No. C621951.
PER CURIAM.
The State of Louisiana invokes the appellate jurisdiction of this court pursuant to La. Const. art. V, § 5(D), on the ground the district court declared certain statutory provisions unconstitutional.
Pretermitting the merits, we find the appeal is not properly before this court. Article V, § 5(D) vests appellate jurisdiction in this court in cases in which “a law or ordinance has been declared unconstitutional....” A review of the district court's judgment indicates nothing in the judgment declares a law or ordinance unconstitutional for purposes of La. Const. art. V, § 5(D). Rather, the district court's judgment merely sustains defendant's declinatory exception.
We acknowledge the district court's oral reasons indicate its decision to sustain the exception may have been based on constitutional grounds. Specifically, the court's oral reasons reference defendant's brief, which argued retroactive application of the statutes in question violated the due process clause.
Nonetheless, it is well-settled law that the district court's reasons for judgment do not form part of the judgment. SeeLa.Code Civ. P. art. 1918; see also Perez v. Evenstar, Inc., 12–1003 (La.6/22/12), 91 So.3d 288;Carmena v. East Baton Rouge Parish Sheriff's Office, 06–2680 (La.2/2/07), 947 So.2d 715;Haynes v. United Parcel Service, 05–2378 (La.7/6/06), 933 So.2d 765;Spiers v. Roye, 04–2189 (La.App. 1st Cir.2/10/06), 927 So.2d 1158;Davis v. Hoffman, 00–2326 (La.App. 4th Cir.10/24/01), 800 So.2d 1028; LaRocca v. Bailey, 01–0618 (La.App. 3rd Cir.11),2 799 So.2d 1263;
[136 So.3d 793]
City of Kaplan v. Mayard, 616 So.2d 826 (La.App. 3rd Cir.1993); Marino v. Marino, 576 So.2d 1196 (La.App. 5th Cir.1991).
Because there is no declaration of unconstitutionality in the district court's judgment, there is no basis for the exercise of this court's appellate jurisdiction. Accordingly, pursuant to La.Code Civ. P. art. 2162, the appeal is transferred to the court of appeal for further proceedings.1
--------
Notes:
1. Defendant filed a “Motion to Dismiss Appeal, or in the Alternative, to Transfer to a Court of Proper Jurisdiction.” Because we determined, ex proprio motu, that we lack appellate jurisdiction,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Foret
...Accordingly, this Court found no basis to exercise its appellate jurisdiction and transferred the appeal. See State v. Foret, 2014–0257 (La.3/14/14), 136 So.3d 792 (per curiam). In a later per curiam, this Court found that venue was proper in East Baton Rouge Parish, and ordered the court o......
-
State v. Foret
...was no basis for its exercise of appellate jurisdiction and transferred the appeal to this court. State v. Foret, 2014–0257 (La.3/14/14), 136 So.3d 792 (per curiam).Thereafter, on June 6, 2014, this court issued a Rule to Show Cause Order, noting from our examination of the record that the ......
-
State v. Foret
...6basis for its exercise of appellate jurisdiction and transferred the appeal to this court. State v. Foret, 2014-0257 (La. 3/14/14), 136 So. 3d 792 (per curiam). Thereafter, on June 6, 2014, this court issued a Rule to Show Cause Order, noting from our examination of the record that the Nov......
-
Gaspard v. City of Abbeville
...grant and docket.WEIMER, J., dissents and would grant docket. This case presents not only a question of law—whether the requirement of [136 So.3d 792]La. R.S. 40:2531(B)(3) that “[a]ll interrogations of any police employee or law enforcement officer in connection with the investigation shal......