Case Name: STATE of Louisiana v. James ALLEN, Jr.
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1973-01-15
Citations: 276 So. 2d 868
Docket Number: No. 52027
Parties: STATE of Louisiana v. James ALLEN, Jr.
Judges: BARHAM, J., concurs.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 276
Pages: 868–872

Head Matter:
STATE of Louisiana v. James ALLEN, Jr.
No. 52027.
Supreme Court of Louisiana.
Jan. 15, 1973.
On Rehearing March 26, 1973.
Rehearing Denied May 7, 1973.
Joseph B. Dupont, Sr., DuPont & DuPont, Plaquemine, for defendant-appellant.
William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Samuel C. Cashio, Dist. Atty., Joseph W. Cole, Jr., Asst. Dist. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.

Opinion:
SANDERS, Justice.
By Bill of Information, the State charged James Allen with manslaughter in connection with the death of Robert Lockett. The Court granted the defendant a preliminary hearing and, after the hearing, released the defendant on bail. The case came on for trial. On April 13, 1970, the jury returned a verdict of guilty. Later, the trial judge sentenced the defendant to a term of 15 years in Louisiana State Penitentiary.
The errors alleged relate to the failure to furnish defense counsel the evidence taken at the preliminary hearing upon his request at the trial, the denial of a continuance, voir dire examination of jurors, and the examination of witnesses.
We note initially that no formal bills of exceptions are in the record. It is true that the Court Reporter has transcribed and certified portions of the trial record relating to bills of exceptions. These transcriptions neither bear the trial judge's signature, nor are they bills of exceptions. LSA-C.Cr.P. Arts. 844, 845; State v. Miller, 146 La. 236, 83 So. 539 (1920); State v. Smith, 149 La. 700, 90 So. 28 (1921).
Article 844 of the Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure pertinently provides:
"The appellate court shall consider only formal bills of exceptions which have been signed by the trial judge in conformity with Article 845."
Article 845 stipulates:
"The court must sign the formal bills of exceptions, but may attach per curiam comments stating its reasons for the rulings. If the court refuses to sign a formal bill of exceptions, its refusal may be reviewed on a writ of mandamus."
In State v. Miller, supra, this Court held:
"It is well settled that the mere minute entry showing the reservation of a bill of exception in a criminal case cannot receive consideration in this court. The bill must be written out and signed by the judge."
Inasmuch as no bills of exceptions were perfected, our review is limited to error that is discoverable by an inspection of the pleadings and proceedings. LSA-C.Cr.P. Art. 920; State v. Hodges, 261 La. 1, 258 So.2d 851 (1972); State v. Judson, 261 La. 40, 258 So.2d 864 (1972).
Our review fails to disclose such an error.
For the reasons assigned, the conviction and sentence are affirmed.