Case Name: STATE of Louisiana v. William J. KRAFT
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1974-04-29
Citations: 294 So. 2d 219
Docket Number: No. 54144
Parties: STATE of Louisiana v. William J. KRAFT.
Judges: SANDERS, C. J., dissents for the reasons assigned by MARCUS, J.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 294
Pages: 219–223

Head Matter:
STATE of Louisiana v. William J. KRAFT.
No. 54144.
Supreme Court of Louisiana.
April 29, 1974.
Milton P. Masinter, New Orleans, for defendant-appellant.
William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., Woodrow W. Erwin, Dist. Atty., Julian J. Rodrigue, Asst.-Dist. Atty., for-plaintiff-appellee.

Opinion:
BARHAM, Justice.
Defendant was convicted after a trial by jury of simple burglary, a violation of R.S. 14:62, and was sentenced to seven years' imprisonment.
A written motion for appeal was filed, the trial court issued an order granting the appeal on September 27, 1972, and the return date was set for November 27, 1972. A defense motion for an extension of the return date was filed on November 22, 1972, and an extension of the return date to January IS, 1973 was granted.
The record on appeal contains a letter from Affiliated Reporters, Inc., dated December 26, 1972, to defense counsel, advising counsel that the transcript of the subject case was prepared and that it would be filed in the trial court and a copy forwarded to counsel upon payment of the bill for preparing the transcript which had earlier been sent to counsel. While the transcript of the testimony taken at trial contained in the record on appeal evidences a filing date of December 7, 1972, it is obvious, from the letter of Affiliated Reporters, Inc., dated December 26, 1972, that the transcript was not filed in December of 1972. The State admitted in brief that the transcript was not filed until July 19, 1973, and we accept this admission.
As indicated by the record, no action was taken relative to defendant's appeal after December, 1972, until March 30, 1973, when defendant filed a motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis. The trial court denied defendant's motion and defendant applied to this Court for remedial writs. On May 18, 1973 (after the return date for the appeal had lapsed), we ordered the trial court to hold an eviden-tiary hearing to determine the defendant's indigency or, in the alternative, to grant an appeal in forma pauperis. Our alternative order for an appeal in forma pauperis or an evidentiary hearing to determine defendant's entitlement to proceed in 'forma pauperis required the trial court, once the defendant's indigency was established, to set in motion anew the procedures for appeal. When we ordered an appeal in for-ma pauperis or, alternatively, a hearing to determine defendant's indigency, the original return date for appeal had expired. In effect, by exercise of our supervisory and plenary jurisdiction, an out-of-time appeal was granted. After the trial court conducted the evidentiary hearing, leave to appeal in forma pauperis was granted on July 17, 1973.
After the appeal in forma pauperis was granted by the trial court it was encumbent upon the court to set a return date for defendant's appeal. See C.Cr.P. Art. 915. No return date was set. The record on appeal was not lodged- in this Court until November 13, 1973, almost two full months after a return date would have expired had the trial court fixed the most remote date allowable for a return date. C.Cr.P. Art. 919. Since no return date was set, there was no effective time limit for defendant to perfect his bills of exceptions. When defendant was notified that the record on 'appeal had been lodged in this Court, he filed a motion to remand to the trial court to allow him to perfect bills of exceptions reserved prior to and durin'g the trial on the merits.
Since our May 18, 1973 order was tantamount to granting an out-of-time appeal, the trial court had a duty to set a return date for the appeal when defendant's motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis was granted on July 17, 1973. Two days subsequent to the granting of the motion, the transcript was filed in the trial court. Had a return date for the appeal been set, it would then have been defense counsel's duty to timely perfect his bills of exceptions to enable the clerk of the trial court to include the perfected bills in the record he was obliged to prepare and deliver to this Court on or before an assigned return date. Since no return date was set, defense counsel was not aware of any time limit within which to perfect his bills.
Because of the circumstances which exist in the case at bar, we grant defendant's motion to remand.
Accordingly, we remand this matter to the Twenty-Second Judicial District Court with instructions that a return date be set in accordance with law and that defendant be allowed to perfect all properly reserved bills of exceptions for inclusion in the record on appeal, to be delivered by the clerk of the trial court to this Court.
SANDERS, C. J., dissents for the reasons assigned by MARCUS, J.
MARCUS, J., dissents and assigns reasons.
. That Code of Criminal Procedure article reads, in pertinent part, as follows:
"A. When a motion for an appeal is made in conformity with Articles 912 and 914, the court shall order an appeal, and set the return date in the order. If the bills of exceptions are not submitted and signed prior to the date of the order of appeal, the court shall set a date not later than the return date for the submission and signing of bills of exceptions in accordance with Article 845. When a motion for an appeal has been timely filed, the appeal shall not be affected by any fault or omission on the part of the trial court." (Ehiphasis here and elsewhere supplied) .
. That article reads:
"An appeal shall be returnable to the appellate court within not less than fifteen days nor more than sixty days from the date the order of appeal is entered. The trial court may extend a return date."