Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Advocates
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Advocates

STATE OF LOUISIANA v. TROY L. ARMSTRONG.

Defendant's application not considered.

ORDER

By this writ application, the defendant seeks review of his conviction on April 9, 1984, in the City Court of Minden, Ward One, Webster Parish, of driving while intoxicated in violation of R.S. 14:98.

Upon defendant's giving notice of intention to apply to the Court of Appeal for a writ of review, the trial judge ordered that the application for writs be filed in the Court of Appeal on or before May 14, 1984. Upon defendant's motion, the time in which to file the writ application was extended until May 24, 1984. Rules 4-2, 4-3, Uniform Rules of the Courts of Appeal.

The defendant's application was filed in the Court of Appeal by mailing same addressed to the clerk. The mailing was postmarked May 29, 1984, and is considered filed as of that date. Rule 2-13, Uniform Rules of the Courts of Appeal.

Rule 4-3 of the Uniform Rules of the Courts of Appeal provides:

". . . An application not filed in this court within the time so fixed or extended shall not be considered, in the absence of a showing that the delay in filing was not due to the applicant's fault." (emphasis supplied)

The application was not filed within the time fixed and extended by the trial judge. The applicant has made no showing that the delay in filing was not due to the applicant's fault.

Accordingly, pursuant to the mandatory provision of the Uniform Rules, the defendant's application is not considered.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

STATE v. ARMSTRONG
(Jun 1, 1984)