Case Name: STATE of Louisiana, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Edward D. KIRTS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1983-12-14
Citations: 447 So. 2d 1
Docket Number: No. CR83-436
Parties: STATE of Louisiana, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Edward D. KIRTS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before GUIDRY, FORET and KNOLL, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 447
Pages: 1–4

Head Matter:
STATE of Louisiana, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Edward D. KIRTS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. CR83-436.
Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.
Dec. 14, 1983.
On Rehearing March 7, 1984.
Rehearing Denied March 29, 1984.
Stephen Everett, Alexandria, for defendant-appellant.
G. Earl Humphries, III, Asst. Dist. Atty., Alexandria, for plaintiff-appellee.
Before GUIDRY, FORET and KNOLL, JJ.

Opinion:
GUIDRY, Judge.
On July 31, 1982, the defendant, Edward D. Kirts, was arrested and charged with forcible rape, a violation of LSA-R.S. 14:42.1. He was tried before a jury of 12 persons who found him guilty as charged by a vote of 11 to 1. After multiple offender bills were filed, and following a pre-sen-tence investigation and hearing, the defendant was sentenced to serve 35 years at hard labor, the first 25 years to be served without probation, parole, or suspension of sentence.
At the commencement of his trial, the defendant moved to quash the jury venire due to a lack of blacks in the venire available for selection as jurors. The motion was denied. After the trial, the defendant filed a motion for new trial alleging irregularity in the "excuse" of jurors from the prospective panel, and asked for an evidentiary hearing thereon. Both of defendant's motions were denied.
The defendant appeals the denial of said motions and has submitted written briefs alleging two assignments of error. However, defendant's assignments of error were not perfected as required by LSA-C. Cr.P. Art. 844. Therefore, even though the assignments were briefed by the defendant, this case is subject only to a review for errors patent on the face of the record. State v. Zeno, 322 So.2d 136 (La.1975) and State v. Spears, 350 So.2d 603 (La.1977).
We have carefully examined the record in this case pursuant to the mandate of LSA-C.Cr.P. Art. 920, and finding no errors patent on the face of the record, we affirm the defendant's conviction and sentence imposed.
AFFIRMED.