Opinion
2015 KA 1747
04-15-2016
STATE OF LOUISIANA v. ANTHONY K. WHITE
Hillar C. Moore III District Attorney Monisa L. Thompson Assistant District Attorney Baton Rouge, Louisiana Counsel for Plaintiff-Appellee State of Louisiana Cynthia K. Meyer New Orleans, Louisiana Counsel for Defendant-Appellant Anthony K. White
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION ON APPEAL FROM THE NINETEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
NUMBER 08-10-0909, SECTION II, PARISH OF EAST BATON ROUGE
STATE OF LOUISIANA HONORABLE RICHARD D. ANDERSON, JUDGE Hillar C. Moore III
District Attorney
Monisa L. Thompson
Assistant District Attorney
Baton Rouge, Louisiana Counsel for Plaintiff-Appellee
State of Louisiana Cynthia K. Meyer
New Orleans, Louisiana Counsel for Defendant-Appellant
Anthony K. White BEFORE: GUIDRY, HOLDRIDGE, AND CHUTZ, JJ.
Disposition: CONVICTION AND SENTENCE AFFIRMED; DEFENSE COUNSEL'S MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED.
CHUTZ, J.
The defendant, Anthony K. White, was charged by bill of information with one count of aggravated arson, a violation of La. R.S. 14:51 (count I); one count of attempted second degree murder, a violation of La. R.S. 14:27 and La. R.S. 14:30.1 (count II); one count of illegal use of a weapon or dangerous instrumentalities, a violation of La. R.S. 14:94B (count III); and one count of aggravated criminal damage to property, a violation of La. R.S. 14:55 (count IV). At his arraignment, the defendant pled not guilty. Thereafter, pursuant to a plea agreement, counts I, III, and IV were dismissed, and the defendant pled guilty to count II. Following a Boykin examination, the trial court accepted the defendant's guilty plea on count II, and he was sentenced to an agreed upon sentence of twenty-three years at hard labor, without benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence, with credit for time served. The defendant now appeals. For the following reasons, we affirm the defendant's conviction and sentence, and grant defense counsel's motion to withdraw.
Boykin v. Alabama , 395 U.S. 238, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969).
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Since the defendant entered a plea of guilty, the facts were not fully developed in this case. At the time of the guilty plea, without objection, the State submitted the facts adduced at the preliminary examination as the factual basis for the plea. According to investigative reports and an affidavit of probable cause, on August 1, 2010, Baton Rouge Fire Department personnel responded to a house fire, where they observed a cloth rag, soaked in gasoline, which was ignited and placed near door trim. The homeowner, Alice Carter, spoke with fire department personnel and stated that her ex-boyfriend, the defendant, may have placed the rag at the door as he previously threatened to burn her house and kill her. The following day, the defendant was arrested, where, after being informed of his Miranda rights, he admitted that he tried to set Carter's house on fire. He stated that after he placed the gasoline-soaked rag near the door trim, he returned to his house, became angrier, and returned to Carter's house where he shot at her seven times with a 9mm pistol. Carter sustained a gunshot wound to her arm and was transported to a local hospital. As a result, the defendant was charged with one count of aggravated arson, one count of attempted second degree murder of Carter, one count of illegal use of a weapon or dangerous instrumentality, and one count of aggravated criminal damage to property.
The transcript for the preliminary examination is not included in the appellate record. The minutes indicate that the State presented evidence at the hearing, the defense submitted the matter without evidence, and the trial court found probable cause to support the charges.
Miranda v. Arizona , 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). --------
ANDERS BRIEF
Defense counsel filed a brief containing no assignments of error, and a motion to withdraw. In the brief and motion to withdraw, referring to the procedures outlined in State v. Jyles , 96-2669 (La. 12/12/97), 704 So.2d 241 (per curiam), counsel indicated that after a conscientious and thorough review of the record, she could find no non-frivolous issues to raise on appeal and could find no trial court rulings that would arguably support the appeal. (Defense brief, p. 3).
The procedure in Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), used in Louisiana, was discussed in State v. Benjamin , 573 So.2d 528, 529-31 (La. App. 4th Cir. 1990), sanctioned by the Louisiana Supreme Court in State v. Mouton , 95-0981 (La. 4/28/95), 653 So.2d 1176, 1177 (per curiam), and expanded by the Louisiana Supreme Court in Jyles , 704 So.2d at 242. According to Anders , "if counsel finds his case to be wholly frivolous, after a conscientious examination of it, he should so advise the court and request permission to withdraw." 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S.Ct. at 1400. To comply with Jyles , appellate counsel must review not only the procedural history of the case and the evidence presented at trial, but must also provide "a detailed and reviewable assessment for both the defendant and the appellate court of whether the appeal is worth pursuing in the first place." Jyles , 704 So.2d at 242 (quoting Mouton , 653 So.2d at 1177). When conducting a review for compliance with Anders , an appellate court must conduct an independent review of the record to determine whether the appeal is wholly frivolous. State v. Thomas , 2012-0177 (La. App. 1st Cir. 12/28/12), 112 So.3d 875, 878.
Herein, defense counsel has complied with all the requirements necessary to file an Anders brief. She has reviewed the procedural history and facts of the case and concludes that there are no non-frivolous issues for appeal. She notes that no pre-trial rulings were preserved for appeal under State v. Crosby , 338 So.2d 584, 588 (La. 1976). Further, defense counsel certifies that the defendant was served with a copy of the Anders brief and motion to withdraw as attorney of record. Defense counsel's motion to withdraw notes the defendant has been informed, but has not availed himself, of his right to file a pro se brief on his own behalf.
At the Boykin hearing, the trial court informed the defendant of his Boykin rights (right to trial by jury, right against compulsory self-incrimination, and right of confrontation) prior to the acceptance of the guilty plea, and the defendant indicated that he understood and waived his rights. As noted by defense counsel, an examination of the colloquy reveals that the trial court thoroughly made sure that the defendant understood the rights he was waiving in pleading guilty. The trial court further set forth the statutory elements and sentencing range for the offense. Additionally, the defendant confirmed that he had not been intimidated, forced, or coerced to plead guilty, and that he was not under the influence of drugs, alcohol, or medication at the time.
We have conducted an independent review of the entire record in this matter, including a review for error under La. C.Cr.P. art. 920(2). Since the defendant pled guilty, our review of the guilty plea colloquy is limited by State v. Collins , 2014-1461 (La. 2/27/15), 159 So.3d 1040 (per curiam) and State v. Guzman , 99-1753 (La. 5/16/00), 769 So.2d 1158. We have found no reversible errors under La. C.Cr.P. art. 920(2). Furthermore, we have found no non-frivolous issues or trial court rulings that arguably support the defendant's appeal. Accordingly, the defendant's conviction and sentence are affirmed. Defense counsel's motion to withdraw, which has been held in abeyance pending the disposition in this matter, is hereby granted.
DECREE
We affirm the conviction and sentence of defendant, Anthony K. White. The motion to withdraw filed by defense counsel is granted.
CONVICTION AND SENTENCE AFFIRMED; DEFENSE COUNSEL'S MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED.