Opinion
2012 KA 1321
03-22-2013
STATE OF LOUISIANA v. ALFRED JAMES McKINNIS
Hillar C. Moore, III Sonya Cardia-Porter Monisa L. Thompson Baton Rouge, LA Counsel for Appellee, State of Louisiana Prentice L. White Baton Rouge, LA Counsel for Defendant/Appellant, Alfred James McKinnis
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
Appealed from the
Nineteenth Judicial District Court
In and for the Parish of East Baton Rouge, State of Louisiana
Trial Court Number 03-11-0596
Honorable Richard D. Anderson, Judge Presiding
Hillar C. Moore, III
Sonya Cardia-Porter
Monisa L. Thompson
Baton Rouge, LA
Counsel for Appellee,
State of Louisiana
Prentice L. White
Baton Rouge, LA
Counsel for Defendant/Appellant,
Alfred James McKinnis
BEFORE: WHIPPLE, C.J., McCLENDON AND HIGGINBOTHAM, JJ. WHIPPLE , C.J.
Defendant, Alfred James McKinnis, was charged by bill of information with one count of failure to register and notify as a sex offender, a violation of LSA-R.S. 15:542.1.4. He pled not guilty. The state subsequently amended the bill of information to correct the dates of defendant's offense, and defendant withdrew his former plea of not guilty and pled guilty as charged. Defendant waived his sentencing delays, and the trial court sentenced him to two years at hard labor, without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence. Defendant subsequently filed a motion to reconsider sentence and a motion to correct illegal sentence, but the trial court denied both of these motions. For the following reasons, we affirm defendant's conviction and sentence. Additionally, we grant defense counsel's motion to withdraw.
FACTS
The facts surrounding defendant's instant offense were not developed in this case because defendant pled guilty as charged, and defendant stipulated that a factual basis existed for his guilty plea. The record reveals that the amended bill of information charged defendant with failing to comply with sex offender registration and notification requirements between January 6, 2009 and February 5, 2011.
ISSUES PRESENTED
The defense brief contains no assignments of error and sets forth that it is filed to conform with State v. Jyles, 96-2669 (La. 12/12/97), 704 So. 2d 241 (per curiam), wherein the Louisiana Supreme Court approved the procedures outlined in State v. Benjamin, 573 So. 2d 528 (La. App. 4th Cir. 1990). Benjamin set forth a procedure to comply with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967), in which the United States Supreme Court discussed how appellate counsel should proceed when, upon conscientious review of a case, counsel found the appeal would be wholly frivolous. See Benjamin, 573 So. 2d at 529. Benjamin has repeatedly been cited with approval by the Louisiana Supreme Court. See Jyles, 704 So. 2d at 241; State v. Mouton, 95-0981 (La. 4/28/95), 653 So. 2d 1176, 1177 (per curiam); and State v. Royals, 600 So. 2d 653 (La. 1992).
In the instant case, defense counsel reviewed the procedural history of the case in his brief. He set forth that, after a review of the record in this case, he has found no non-frivolous issues to present on appeal. Accordingly, defense counsel requested that he be relieved from further briefing and has filed a motion to withdraw. In the motion to withdraw, defendant's counsel asserts that defendant was informed of his right to file his own brief in this matter, but the defendant has filed no pro se brief with this Court.
This court has conducted an independent review of the entire record in this case, and we have found no reversible errors under LSA-C.Cr.P. art. 920(2). Furthermore, we conclude there are no non-frivolous issues or trial court rulings that support this appeal. Accordingly, defendant's conviction and sentence are hereby affirmed. Defense counsel's motion to withdraw, which has been held in abeyance pending the disposition of this matter, is hereby granted.
We note that defendant's motions to reconsider sentence and to correct an illegal sentence have both been denied by the trial court, but in light of the fact that defendant received the minimum-possible legal sentence for his offense, we agree with counsel that the denial of these motions presents nothing for review on appeal. See LSA-R.S. 15:542.1.4(A)(1).
CONVICTION AND SENTENCE AFFIRMED; MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED.