Opinion
2017 KA 0047
06-02-2017
STATE OF LOUISIANA v. AARON PAUL MILLER
Hillar C. Moore, III District Attorney Monisa L. Thompson Assistant District Attorney Baton Rouge, Louisiana Attorneys for Plaintiff/Appellee, State of Louisiana Bertha M. Hillman Covington, Louisiana Attorney for Defendant/Appellant, Aaron Paul Miller
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION On Appeal from the Nineteenth Judicial District Court In and for the Parish of East Baton Rouge State of Louisiana
Trial Court No. 01-15-0414 The Honorable Anthony J. Marabella, Jr., Judge Presiding Hillar C. Moore, III
District Attorney
Monisa L. Thompson
Assistant District Attorney
Baton Rouge, Louisiana Attorneys for Plaintiff/Appellee,
State of Louisiana Bertha M. Hillman
Covington, Louisiana Attorney for Defendant/Appellant,
Aaron Paul Miller BEFORE: PETTIGREW, McDONALD, AND PENZATO, JJ. PENZATO, J.
The defendant, Aaron Paul Miller, was originally charged by bill of information with eight counts of simple burglary of an inhabited dwelling, violations of La. R.S. 14:62.2, and initially pled not guilty on all counts. Subsequently, the State dismissed counts three through eight, and the defendant withdrew his former not guilty pleas and pled guilty as charged on counts one and two. As to each count, the trial court sentenced the defendant to twelve years imprisonment at hard labor, one year to be served without the benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence. The trial court ordered that the sentences be served consecutively. The trial court denied the defendant's motion to reconsider sentence. 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 and sentences and grant the appellate counsel's motion to withdraw.
The defendant was charged in the same bill of information as codefendant, Chase Aaron McNemar. According to the record, McNemar also pled guilty, in a separate proceeding, on counts one and two and the remaining counts were dismissed as in this case.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Since the defendant pled guilty, the facts were not fully developed in this case. The following facts are in accordance with the basis for the plea presented by the State at the Boykin hearing and in the bill of information. As to count one, on or about October 15, 2014, without consent or authority, the defendant entered a residence located at 4513 Linstrom Drive in Baton Rouge and committed a burglary therein. Prior thereto, as to count two, on or about September 9, 2014, without consent or authority, the defendant entered a residence located at 3511 Monticello Avenue in Baton Rouge and committed a burglary therein.
Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 243, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 1712, 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969). --------
ANDERS BRIEF
The appellate 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 (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, 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, 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, 2102-0177 (La. App. 1 Cir. 12/28/12), 112 So.3d 875, 878 (en banc).
Herein, the appellate counsel has adequately complied with the requirements necessary to file an Anders brief. Appellate counsel reviewed the bill of information, the procedural history, the Boykin examination, and the factual basis for the pleas. 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 appellate 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 pro se brief.
On the day of the Boykin hearing, the State noted for the record its offer to dismiss counts three through eight and that the defendant in exchange agreed to plead guilty as charged on counts one and two. The defendant confirmed his desire to accept the State's offer. Prior to the acceptance of the guilty plea, the trial court informed the defendant of the statutory elements and sentencing range for the offenses. The defendant stated that he understood. 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 and accepted the State's factual basis for the offenses. The defendant confirmed that he was not under the influence of any alcohol, drug, or medication. Further, the defendant confirmed that he had not been promised anything or threatened or forced in any way to plead guilty. The State waived any right to file a habitual offender bill of information. 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). The trial court ordered a presentence investigation and set the sentencing for a later date.
This court has conducted an independent review of the entire record in this matter, including a review for error under La. Code Crim. 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, 1162. We have found no reversible errors under La. Code Crim. 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 and sentences are affirmed. Appellate counsel's motion to withdraw, which has been held in abeyance pending the disposition in this matter, is hereby granted.
CONVICTIONS AND SENTENCES AFFIRMED. MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED.