Opinion
No. KA 89 0025.
May 16, 1989.
APPEAL FROM 32ND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF TERREBONNE, STATE OF LOUISIANA, HONORABLE PAUL R. WIMBISH, P.J.
Allen W. Helm, III, Asst. Dist. Atty., Houma, for plaintiff and appellee-State of La.
Jason Lyons, Houma, for defendant and appellant-Joseph Johnson, Jr.
Before LeBLANC, CARTER and LANIER, JJ.
APPEAL DISMISSED: Unlike proceedings under La.R.S. 15:1351, et seq., proceedings under La.R.S. 32:1550 have consistently been treated as criminal matters. See State v. Spooner, 520 So.2d 336 (La. 1988); State v. Manuel, 426 So.2d 140 (La. 1983); State v. Whiting, 493 So.2d 286 (La.App. 2nd Cir.), writ denied, 496 So.2d 354 (La. 1986); State v. Traylor, 467 So.2d 875 (La.App. 2nd Cir. 1985); State v. Cook, 460 So.2d 1075 (La.App. 2nd Cir. 1984), Writ denied, 466 So.2d 465 (La. 1985). Since there is no right to trial by jury in a forfeiture proceeding under Title 32, a judgment ordering or denying forfeiture is not appealable. La. Const. Art. V, 10(A)(3); La.R.S. 32:1550(C); State v. Traylor; State v. Cook. Defendant's proper remedy is to apply for supervisory writs. See La.C.Cr.P. art. 912.1C(1).
This Court treated a forfeiture under R.S. 32:1550 as a civil appeal in Greenburg v. One Hundred Seventy-Five Thousand Dollars in Cash, 517 So.2d 430 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1987). However, as noted in fn. 2, the circumstances of that case justified such a treatment. The circumstances herein are not analogous.
The present appeal does not comply with Rule 4, Uniform Rules-Courts of Appeal. Therefore, it will not be treated as an application for supervisory writs. See State v. Clause, 486 So.2d 1206, at fn. 2 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1986). Defendant may file an application in compliance with Rule 4, if he so elects.