Opinion
NUMBER 2017 KA 0534
09-15-2017
STATE OF LOUISIANA v. COREY LEE ROBINSON
Warren L. Montgomery District Attorney Matthew Caplan Assistant District Attorney Covington, LA Counsel for Appellee State of Louisiana Gwendolyn K. Brown Louisiana Appellate Project Baton Rouge, LA Counsel for Defendant/Appellant Corey Lee Robinson
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
On appeal from the Twenty-Second Judicial District Court In and for the Parish of St. Tammany State of Louisiana
Docket Number 557315 Honorable Allison H. Penzato, Judge Presiding Warren L. Montgomery
District Attorney
Matthew Caplan
Assistant District Attorney
Covington, LA Counsel for Appellee
State of Louisiana Gwendolyn K. Brown
Louisiana Appellate Project
Baton Rouge, LA Counsel for Defendant/Appellant
Corey Lee Robinson BEFORE: GUIDRY, PETTIGREW, AND CRAIN, JJ. GUIDRY, J.
The defendant, Corey L. Robinson, was charged by an amended bill of information with four counts of distribution of cocaine, in violation of La. R.S. 40:967(A)(1)(counts one through four); two counts of distribution of cocaine within two thousand feet of a school, in violation of La. R.S. 40:967(A)(1) and La. R.S. 40:981.3(A)(1) (counts five and six); and two counts of possession of cocaine between 28 and 200 grams, in violation of La. R.S. 40:967(F)(1)(a)(counts seven and eight), to which the defendant entered a plea of not guilty. Subsequently, the State nolle prossed counts seven and eight, and the defendant withdrew his former pleas and pled guilty to counts one through six. The State also filed a habitual offender bill of information as to count one. The defendant admitted to the allegations, and the trial court adjudicated the defendant a third-felony habitual offender.
Cocaine is classified as a controlled dangerous substance pursuant to La. R.S. 40:964, Schedule II(A)(4).
On the amended bill of information, the note by the State indicating that counts seven and eight were nollle prossed references double jeopardy.
The defendant was adjudicated a third-felony habitual offender based on the following predicate convictions: possession with intent to distribute a Schedule II controlled dangerous substance, and possession of a Schedule II controlled dangerous substance.
The trial court then imposed a sentence of twenty years imprisonment at hard labor without the benefit of probation or suspension of sentence and ordered that the first two years of imprisonment be served without the benefit of parole on count one. On counts two, three, and four, the trial court imposed twenty years imprisonment at hard labor on each count, and ordered that the first two years of said sentences be served without the benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence. Finally, on counts five and six, the trial court imposed twenty years imprisonment at hard labor, a fine of $50,000 on each count, and ordered that the first two years of said sentences be served without the benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence. The trial court further ordered that all sentences be served concurrently.
The defendant now appeals. Contending that there are no non-frivolous issues upon which to support the appeal, appellate counsel filed a brief raising no assignments of error and a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. For the following reasons, we affirm the convictions, habitual offender adjudication, and sentences and grant the defense counsel's motion to withdraw.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Since the defendant pled guilty, the facts were not developed in this case. At the Boykin hearing, the parties agreed to the State's offer of a stipulation that pretrial discussions and discovery establish a factual basis as to each of the counts. As stated, counts one, two, three, and four consist of distribution of cocaine, while counts five and six consist of distribution of cocaine within two thousand feet of Pope John Paul High School or while on a bus. The bill of information further indicates that the defendant committed count one on April 29, 2014, counts two and three on May 14, 2014, count four on May 27, 2014, count five on July 9, 2014, and count six on July 16, 2014.
Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 243, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 1712, 23 L. Ed. 2d 274 (1969). --------
ANDERS BRIEF
The defense counsel has 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.
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, p. 1 (La. 4/28/95), 653 So. 2d 1176, 1177 (per curiam), and expanded by the Louisiana Supreme Court in Jyles, 96-2669 at p. 3, 704 So. 2d at 242. According to Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400, "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." To comply with Jyles, appellate counsel must review not only the procedural history and the facts of the case, 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, 96-2669 at p. 3, 704 So. 2d at 242 (quoting Mouton, 95-0981 at p. 2, 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.
On the day of the Boykin hearing, prior to the acceptance of the guilty pleas, the trial court inquired as to the defendant's age, education, and ability to read and write, and confirmed that the defendant was not under the influence of any drugs or alcohol. The trial court informed the defendant of the statutory elements and sentencing range for the offenses. The defendant confirmed that he understood the elements of the offenses and the sentencing range. The trial court informed the defendant of his Boykin rights (right to trial by jury, right against compulsory self-incrimination, and right of confrontation), his right to an appeal, and that by pleading guilty, he would be waiving his rights. The defendant indicated that he understood and waived his rights. Further, the defendant confirmed that he had not been forced or coerced to plead guilty and that he was satisfied with his lawyer's performance. When the defendant entered his guilty pleas, he did not reserve his right to appeal any pretrial rulings under State v. Crosby, 338 So. 2d 584 (La. 1976). After the defendant plead guilty as charged, he was informed of his right to a hearing on the habitual offender bill of information and waived that right. The defendant admitted to the allegations in the habitual offender bill of information before being adjudicated a third-felony habitual offender on count one.
Herein, the appellate counsel has adequately complied with the requirements necessary to file an Anders brief. Appellate counsel reviewed the bill of information, procedural history, Boykin examination, habitual offender adjudication, and sentencing. Appellate counsel concludes in her brief that there are no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Further, appellate counsel certifies that the defendant was served with a copy of the Anders brief. The defense counsel's motion to withdraw notes the defendant has been notified of his right to file a pro se brief on his own behalf, and the defendant has not filed a supplemental brief.
This court has 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, 14-1461 (La. 2/27/15), 159 So. 3d 1040 (per curiam) and State v. Guzman, 99-1528, pp. 6-7 (La. 5/16/00), 769 So. 2d 1158, 1162. 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 this appeal. Accordingly, the defendant's convictions, habitual offender adjudication, and sentences are affirmed. Defense counsel's motion to withdraw, which has been held in abeyance pending the disposition in this matter, is hereby granted.
CONVICTIONS, HABITUAL OFFENDER ADJUDICATION, AND SENTENCES AFFIRMED; DEFENSE COUNSEL'S MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED.