State of Louisiana (City of Bossier) v. Randall Matthews

No. 56,673-KA · Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit · December 10, 2025 · No. 56,673-KA

Summary

The Louisiana Second Circuit Court of Appeal affirmed the district court’s ruling in a municipal criminal case involving Randall Matthews’s convictions for disturbing the peace and resisting arrest. The court held that Matthews’s supervisory review was untimely because he filed nothing by the return date, did not seek an extension, and waited approximately four months after receiving the record to file. The court also declined to review the underlying convictions and affirmed the reinstatement of the suspended sentence and probation.

Court
Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit
Writing for the Court
Thompson, J.; Robinson, J.; Hunter, J.
Jurisdiction
Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit
Decision date
December 10, 2025
Docket number
56,673-KA
Procedural posture
Matthews sought review in the district court of his convictions under Bossier City ordinances and later of the city court's reinstatement of his jail sentence. The district court declined to review the convictions as untimely but held that reinstatement of the jail sentence was improper and remanded for reinstatement of the suspended sentence and probation. Matthews appealed to the Louisiana Second Circuit.
Standard of review
Appeals from criminal judgments tried under a city ordinance in city court are taken to the district court and are limited to questions of law. The court of appeal reviewed whether the district court properly declined untimely supervisory review.
Precedential value
Published
Parties
Randall Matthews v. State of Louisiana (City of Bossier)
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

appellate procedurewrit of certioraripreservation of errorcriminal proceduremunicipal law

Practice areas

appellate procedurecriminal proceduremunicipal law

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the district court properly refused to review Matthews's convictions because he failed to file a supervisory-writ application by the return date, never sought an extension, and delayed filing for months after receiving the record.
  2. Whether the district court properly declined to reach Matthews's insufficiency-of-the-evidence and related due-process arguments after finding that review of the convictions was procedurally barred.

Holdings

  1. The convictions were not properly before the district court because Matthews filed nothing by the return date, never sought an extension, and unreasonably delayed filing until October 17, 2024, more than four months after receiving the transcript.
  2. The court did not address the insufficiency-of-the-evidence and other assignments because they concerned the underlying convictions, which were not properly before either the district court or the court of appeal.

Key quotations

That four-month delay (after an additional five months from the stated return date) to make any filing with the court is an unreasonable delay. (6)

Factual background

On December 17, 2021, Bossier City police officer Danny Turner, working security at a department store, confronted Matthews after Matthews angrily approached him, used profanity and threatening language, and refused to stop when directed. Turner arrested Matthews after following him. Matthews was charged with assault, disturbing the peace, and resisting an officer; the assault count was dismissed, and a city-court bench trial resulted in convictions for disturbing the peace and resisting an officer. Matthews later obtained a suspended sentence and probation based on his cancer diagnosis, but the city court subsequently reinstated the original jail sentence.

Procedural history

Following a bench trial in Bossier City Court, Matthews was convicted of disturbing the peace and resisting an officer. He filed a motion and order for appeal with a February 23, 2024 return date but made no filing by that date, never sought an extension, and did not file his supervisory-writ application until October 17, 2024, more than four months after receiving the transcript. The district court found review of the convictions procedurally barred, ruled that the city court improperly reinstated jail time after agreeing to a probationary sentence, and remanded for reinstatement of the probationary sentence. The court of appeal affirmed.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…