Opinion
2018 KA 0867
02-22-2019
STATE OF LOUISIANA v. TREISTON PIERRON
Kristine Russell District Attorney And Joseph S. Soignet Assistant District Attorney Thibodaux, Louisiana Attorneys for Appellee State of Louisiana Cynthia K. Meyer New Orleans, Louisiana Attorney for Defendant/Appellant Treiston Pierron
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
APPEALED FROM THE SEVENTEETH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR THE PARISH OF LAFOURCHE STATE OF LOUISIANA
DOCKET NUMBER 549409, DIVISION "C" HONORABLE WALTER I. LANIER, III, JUDGE Kristine Russell
District Attorney
And
Joseph S. Soignet
Assistant District Attorney
Thibodaux, Louisiana Attorneys for Appellee
State of Louisiana Cynthia K. Meyer
New Orleans, Louisiana Attorney for Defendant/Appellant
Treiston Pierron BEFORE: McDONALD, CRAIN, and HOLDRIDGE, JJ. McDONALD, J.
The defendant, Treiston Pierron, was charged by bill of information with aggravated arson, a violation of La. R.S. 14:51, and initially pled not guilty. Pursuant to a sentencing agreement and in exchange for the State foregoing the filing of a habitual offender bill of information, the defendant withdrew his former plea and pled nolo contendere, as charged. The trial court sentenced the defendant, as agreed, to ten years imprisonment at hard labor, and ordered that the first two years of the sentence be served without benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence. The trial court denied the defendant's subsequent pro se motion to withdraw his guilty plea and motion for post-conviction relief, but granted his motion for an out-of-time appeal. Stating that there are no non-frivolous issues upon which to support the appeal, the 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 conviction and sentence, and grant the appellate counsel's motion to withdraw.
The defendant was charged with three counts of arson (district court docket number 545171) and assisting escape (district court docket number 548504) in separate cases that were set for status on the day of the hearing in this case. The parties agreed that the sentence in this case (district court docket number 549409) would be served concurrent to any other sentence. The defendant also entered a plea of no contest to the other arson charges. After the sentences were imposed, the State dismissed the assisting escape charge.
The defendant was sentenced to ten years imprisonment at hard labor on each of the three counts of arson in case number 545171, to be served concurrent to each other and the ten-year sentence imposed in this case.
See State v. Counterman, 475 So.2d 336 (La. 1985).
The appellate counsel presented the sole issue of whether the record reveals error patent such that the conviction or sentence should be reversed.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Since the defendant pled no contest, the facts were not fully developed in this case. In accordance with the bill of information, the factual basis statement at the Boykin hearing, and the probable cause affidavit, on December 26, 2015, the defendant set fire to a structure located at the Lafourche Parish Detention Center, Cell Block C. A fellow inmate advised that he witnessed the defendant light a wick by using paper and a light fixture in the day room. The defendant then walked with the lit paper to cell #2 in Cell Block C, and handed the paper to inmate Christopher Poincot, who then lit more paper and a blanket on fire. Cell Block C housed twenty-three inmates at the time of the incident.
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, referencing the procedures outlined in State v. Jyles, 96-2669 (La. 12/12/97), 704 So.2d 241 (per curiam), the appellate counsel indicated that after a conscientious and thorough review of the record, she could find no non-frivolous issues to raise on appeal, and can find no ruling of the trial court that arguably supports the appeal. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967); State v. Benjamin, 573 So.2d 528, 529-31 (La. App. 4th Cir. 1990).
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. Dyke, 2017-1303 (La. App. 1st Cir. 2/27/18), 244 So.3d 3, 6. Herein, the appellate counsel has complied with all the requirements necessary to file an Anders brief. The appellate counsel has detailed the procedural history, the plea colloquy, and sentencing in this case. Further, the 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 the motion to withdraw and his right to file a pro se brief on his own behalf, and the defendant has not filed a pro se brief.
At the Boykin hearing, the defense counsel informed the court of the charge in the instant case, the pending charges against the defendant in the other cases and the specific terms of the sentencing agreement in exchange for the no contest plea. After the State provided a factual basis for the offense, the defendant confirmed that he heard and understood the alleged facts and that he did not dispute them. The trial court asked the defendant a series of questions, including inquiries as to his date of birth and level of education. The defendant indicated that he had an eleventh-grade education, that he was able to read and write the English language, and that he was not suffering from any mental illness, taking medication, or under the influence of alcohol or drugs. The trial court informed the defendant of the statutory elements and the sentencing range for the offenses. The defendant stated that he understood the offense, the sentencing range, and the sentence to be imposed, and confirmed that he wished to proceed with the plea agreement. Prior to the acceptance of the no contest plea, the trial court informed the defendant of his Boykin rights (right to trial by jury, right against compulsory self-incrimination, and right of confrontation), and that by pleading no contest he would be waiving his rights. The defendant indicated that he understood and waived his rights. The defendant denied that he had been forced, threatened, or intimidated, and agreed that his plea was free and voluntary. The trial court imposed the sentence in accordance with the plea agreement, ordering that the instant sentence be served concurrent to the sentences imposed in the other case. The State immediately dismissed the charge in case number 548504. The defendant was informed that he had two years to file for postconviction relief.
When asked if he had any complaints about the court's treatment of him, the defendant asked for leniency in the sentencing, noting that he felt that he was only being prosecuted due to his prior criminal history. After the trial court and State reiterated that the plea was based on a negotiated, agreed upon sentencing, the defendant confirmed that he understood and wished to go forward with the plea and waive his rights. --------
As stated, the defendant in this case pled no contest. This court has conducted an independent review of the entire record in this matter. We recognize that our review of the plea colloquy is subject to the restraints of State v. Collins, 2014-1461 (La. 2/27/15), 159 So.3d 1040 (per curiam) and State v. Guzman, 99-1528 (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 conclude there are no non-frivolous issues or trial court rulings which arguably support this appeal. Accordingly, the defendant's conviction and sentence are affirmed. Appellate counsel's motion to withdraw, which has been held in abeyance pending the disposition in this matter, is hereby granted.
CONVICTION AND SENTENCE AFFIRMED; APPELLATE COUNSEL'S MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED.