NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

SHANNON J. GREMILLION, Judge.

This court issued, sua sponte, a rule ordering Defendant-Appellant, Edith Gonzales, to show cause, by brief only, why the appeal in this matter should not be dismissed as premature. For the reasons given herein, we hereby dismiss the appeal, but we permit the appellant to file a writ application no later than the date set forth in this opinion.

This cases involves a civil forfeiture proceeding. After conducting a traffic stop on Interstate 10, officers with the St. Martin Parish Sheriff's Office seized $84,170.00 in cash from Defendant's car. The State of Louisiana has filed a notice of pending forfeiture, and Defendant denies that the seized money is subject to forfeiture. Defendant filed a motion for a probable cause hearing and for the release of the seized money. At a hearing held on March 15, 2012, the trial court entered an oral ruling regarding Defendant's motion. On April 3, 2012, Defendant filed a motion for appeal, and the order granting the appeal was signed on April 30, 2012. The record was lodged in this court on January 25, 2013. Because the record did not contain a signed judgment, this court issued a rule for Defendant to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed as premature. Defendant's response to the rule to show cause order was due on February 13, 2013; however, this court did not receive a response to the rule.

We note that in its oral ruling of March 15, 2012, the trial court made a finding that there was probable cause for the state to seize Defendant's money and retain it until the forfeiture trial. Because the oral judgment at issue does not decide the merits of the case, we find that the judgment is interlocutory. See La.Code Civ.P. art. 1841. Since this appeal was taken from a non-appealable, interlocutory ruling, we hereby dismiss the appeal at Defendant's cost. Defendant, Edith Gonzales, is hereby permitted to file a proper application for writs in compliance with Uniform Rules—Courts of Appeal, Rule 4, no later than April 4, 2013. The Appellant is not required to file a notice of intent to seek writs nor obtain an order setting a return date pursuant to Uniform Rules—Courts of Appeal, Rule 4-3, as we hereby construe the motion for appeal as a timely filed notice of intent to seek a supervisory writ.

APPEAL DISMISSED. APPELLANT IS PERMITTED TO FILE AN APPLICATION FOR SUPERVISORY WRITS.