Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
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
Attorney(S)
Judges
Smart Summary

State of Louisiana v. Lucious Thomas, No. 46711 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, Dec. 16, 1963)

Factual and Procedural Background

Lucious Thomas, an adult, was charged in the Orleans Parish Juvenile Court with contributing to the delinquency of a juvenile in violation of R.S. 14:92(7) (a misdemeanor). He was tried in the juvenile court, convicted, and sentenced to serve six months in the parish prison. Thomas appealed to the Louisiana Supreme Court. The defendant's brief relied on Article 7, Section 96 of the Louisiana Constitution, which provides that appeals shall lie to the Supreme Court from final judgments rendered by the Juvenile Court. The State subsequently filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for want of appellate jurisdiction after this case had been submitted.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether, under the 1958 constitutional amendments revising appellate jurisdiction (effective July 1, 1960), an adult convicted of a misdemeanor in the Orleans Parish Juvenile Court has a right of appeal to the Louisiana Supreme Court.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

  • Defendant relied on Article 7, Section 96 of the Louisiana Constitution (as quoted in his appellate brief) asserting that "Appeals shall lie to the Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana from all final judgments rendered by the Juvenile Court."

Appellee's Arguments

  • The State moved to dismiss the appeal for want of appellate jurisdiction based on the 1958 constitutional amendments which revised appellate jurisdiction and limited the classes of cases appealable to the Supreme Court.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent Rule or Principle Cited For Application by the Court
State v. Campbell, 177 La. 559, 148 So. 708 Referenced in a footnote along with a prior constitutional provision (Art. 7, Sec. 52 La. Const. of 1921) regarding appellate practice under earlier law. Cited as related authority to show that, before the 1958 amendments, appeals from juvenile court judgments could properly be taken to the Supreme Court.
State v. Roy, 152 La. 933, 94 So. 703 Authority concerning the court's duty to note lack of jurisdiction even absent a plea to appellate jurisdiction. Relied upon to support the proposition that the Supreme Court must dismiss the appeal and note its lack of jurisdiction despite absence of a timely plea to jurisdiction.
State v. King, 167 La. 350, 119 So. 252 Authority concerning treatment of jurisdictional defects in appeals. Used with other decisions to justify dismissal for want of appellate jurisdiction.
State v. Varnado, 208 La. 319, 23 So.2d 106 Authority concerning jurisdictional considerations and dismissal where appellate jurisdiction is lacking. Relied upon as precedent for dismissing the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court's analysis proceeds from the constitutional revision of appellate jurisdiction adopted in November 1958 and effective July 1, 1960. The Court explains that prior to the 1958 amendments, appeals from the Orleans Parish Juvenile Court to the Louisiana Supreme Court were proper under Article 7, Section 96. The 1958 amendments, however, revised appellate jurisdiction in two relevant respects:

  • The amendment to Article 7, Section 29 vested appellate jurisdiction in the Courts of Appeal over "all matters appealed from the family and juvenile courts, except criminal prosecutions against persons other than juveniles," which the Court reads to mean that the Courts of Appeal are not given jurisdiction over criminal cases where adults are convicted in juvenile court for offenses against juveniles.
  • The amendment to Article 7, Section 10 restricted the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to five enumerated types of cases by stating that "The following cases only shall be appealable to the Supreme Court." One of those five categories, Article 7, Section 10(5), is criminal cases where the penalty of death or imprisonment at hard labor may be imposed or where a fine exceeding $300 or imprisonment exceeding six months has actually been imposed.

Because the instant case is a criminal prosecution of an adult in the juvenile court and the sentence actually imposed (six months in the parish prison) does not exceed the six-month threshold set forth in Article 7, Section 10(5), it is not among the types of cases appealable to the Supreme Court under the 1958 constitutional scheme. The Court notes that, as a consequence, the only method by which the case could reach the Supreme Court is via the Court's supervisory jurisdiction (e.g., Rule XII, Section 2), not by direct appeal. Applying these constitutional provisions and prior decisions holding that lack of appellate jurisdiction must be noted and acted upon by the court, the Court concludes that it lacks appellate jurisdiction and must dismiss the appeal. The Court also notes that the State's motion to dismiss filed after submission "has merit."

Holding and Implications

HOLDING: The appeal is DISMISSED for want of appellate jurisdiction.

Implications: The direct effect is dismissal of Lucious Thomas's appeal because the sentence imposed (six months) falls below the Supreme Court's constitutional minimum for criminal appeals under Article 7, Section 10(5). The opinion does not announce or discuss any broader change in constitutional interpretation beyond applying the 1958 amendments to appellate jurisdiction and directing that the case may only be brought to the Supreme Court by supervisory procedure when appropriate.

This summary is based exclusively on the content of the opinion provided.

STATE OF LOUISIANA v. LUCIOUS THOMAS.

HAWTHORNE, Justice.

Lucious Thomas, an adult charged in the Orleans Parish Juvenile Court with contributing to the delinquency of a juvenile (a misdemeanor) as denounced by R.S. 14:92(7), was tried, convicted, and sentenced to serve six months in the parish prison. He has appealed.

Article 7, Section 96, of our Constitution provides for the establishment of the Orleans Parish Juvenile Court and for that court's jurisdiction, procedure, ect. That court has jurisdiction, among other matters, to try adults for certain crimes against children; all of these offenses are misdemeanors. In his statement of appellate jurisdiction in brief filed here, defendant relies on the provision in the second paragraph of Section 96 that "Appeals shall lie to the Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana from all final judgments rendered by the Juvenile Court. * * *"

Defendant has apparently overlooked the fact that the appellate jurisdiction of the appellate courts of this state was extensively revised and radically changed by constitutional amendments which were adopted in November, 1958, and became effective on July 1, 1960. Before these 1958 amendments defendant's appeal from the juvenile court's judgment of conviction, like appeals from all other final judgments of that court, would have properly been to the Supreme Court under Section 96. However, under the provisions of the 1958 amendment to Article 7, Section 29, of the Constitution (revising the appellate jurisdiction of the Courts of Appeal) appeals in many types of cases which formerly lay to the Supreme Court were vested in the Courts of Appeal. This provision reads in part: "Any provision of this Constitution or law to the contrary notwithstanding the courts of appeal have appellate jurisdiction of the following cases of which the Supreme Court is not given appellate jurisdiction under Article VII, Section 10 of this Constitution; all matters appealed from the family and juvenile courts, except criminal prosecutions against persons other than juveniles * * *." Thus the Courts of Appeal are not vested with appellate jurisdiction of appeals from the Orleans Parish Juvenile Court in criminal cases where adults have been convicted in that court for offenses against juveniles. The question, then, is whether an adult convicted of a misdemeanor in the Orleans juvenile court has the right of appeal to the Supreme Court under the 1958 constitutional provisions which have revised the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.

See also Art. 7, Sec. 52 La. Const. of 1921; State v. Campbell, 177 La. 559, 148 So. 708.

Under the 1958 amendment to Article 7, Section 10, which, as stated, became effective in 1960, the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is now restricted to five types of cases, and this article as amended provides that "The following cases only shall be appealable to the Supreme Court". (Italics ours.) One of the five types of cases appealable to this court is criminal cases in which the penalty of death or imprisonment at hard labor may be imposed or in which a fine exceeding $300.00 or imprisonment exceeding six months has been actually imposed. Art. 7, Sec. 10(5).

This 1958 constitutional amendment revising our appellate jurisdiction provides that certain types of cases only shall be appealable to the Supreme Court, and thus has limited our appellate jurisdiction to the particular types of cases specifically enumerated. The present case is not one of those types since it is a criminal case in which the defendant, charged with and convicted of a misdemeanor, was given a sentence of imprisonment which does not exceed six months. The only way on appeal now lies to this court in a criminal case from the juvenile court is under the provisions of Article 7, Section 10(5), since the limitation implicit in the word "only" in the constitutional provision concerning our appellate jurisdiction precludes our taking jurisdiction of appeals in such cases under Article 7, Section 96, as we formerly could do.

The word "only" did not appear in Article 7, Section 10, before the appellate revision.

Since the revision of appellate jurisdiction in this state, the right of appeal of persons convicted of crimes in the Criminal District Court for the Parish of Orleans, or in the district courts throughout the state, and the right of appeal of adults convicted in juvenile court are now controlled by the same constitutional provision, Article 7, Section 10(5).

Under Article 7, Section 10, as it now reads, the instant case can reach this court only under our supervisory jurisdiction, and the procedure under which it may be brought up to us is set forth in Section 2 of the Rule XII of this court. Since the sentence imposed upon defendant here falls below the Supreme Court's minimum jurisdictional limits in criminal cases, this appeal must be dismissed, and our lack of jurisdiction must be noted by us even in the absence of a plea to our appellate jurisdiction. State v. Roy, 152 La. 933, 94 So. 703; State v. King, 167 La. 350, 119 So. 252; State v. Varnado, 208 La. 319, 23 So.2d 106.

Rule XII, Section 2, reads:
"The party or attorney intending to apply to this court for a writ of certiorari or review, or for any remedial writ, shall give to the judge or judges whose ruling is complained of, and to the party made respondent, or parties made respondents, notice of such intention.
"Upon such notice being given to the judge, he shall fix a reasonable time within which the application shall be filed in this court, and may in his discretion stay further proceedings; provided that upon proper showing the judge may by order extend the time for such filing. Any application not filed in this court within the time so fixed or extended will not be considered unless the applicant establishes to the court's satisfaction that the delay in filing was not due to his fault. * * *" See also Section 2 of Act 82 of 1950, R.S. 13:1573, which governs the procedure in criminal trials of adults coming within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court.

After the case was submitted and after this opinion was written, the State filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for want of appellate jurisdiction, and this motion, for the reasons set out above, has merit.

For the reasons assigned the appeal is dismissed.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

STATE v. THOMAS
(Dec 16, 1963)