DVILANSKY v. CORREU (2026)

James Correu (“Appellant”) filed this appeal seeking relief from the September 9, 2025, order of the trial court that denied his motion for appointment of an attorney to represent him in this child custody proceeding. For the reasons below, we convert this appeal to an application for supervisory writ and deny the writ.

Although this is a child custody proceeding, custody of the minor child is not at issue in this appeal. The sole issue on appeal is whether the trial court erred in denying Appellant's motion for a court-appointed attorney. The judgment from which this appeal is taken is interlocutory in nature. It is not a final judgment from which an appeal may lie. See La. C.C.P. arts. 2083 and 2201. The proper procedure to challenge such a judgment is by writ, not an appeal.

This court may convert an appeal to an application for supervisory writ if the appeal was timely filed. Scurlock v. Heitmeier, 2024-0455, p. 4 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2/4/25), 414 So. 3d 652, 656. In this case, Appellant filed a “Motion for Appeal” seventeen days after the judgment denying his motion. That filing would have been timely as an application for supervisory writ. Rule 4-3 Uniform Rules, Courts of Appeal.

The district courts of this state generally do not have the authority to appoint an attorney to represent a party. The exceptions to the rule are criminal proceedings in which imprisonment is a possible punishment or, in a civil action, when state action is implicated in the cause of action. Lay v. McElven, 96-1325, p. 4 (La. App. 1 Cir. 3/27/97), 691 So. 2d 311, 313. In this case, neither exception to the general rule is applicable.

For the above and foregoing reasons, this appeal is converted to an application for supervisory writ and the writ is denied.

APPEAL CONVERTED TO WRIT; WRIT DENIED.

Chief Judge Roland L. Belsome