Opinion
NO. 2016 KA 0999
02-17-2017
STATE OF LOUISIANA v. THOMAS SPARKS a/k/a ABDULLAH HAKIM EL-MUMIT
Scott Perrilloux, District Attorney Patricia Parker-Amos Charlotte Foster David Guidry Livingston, Louisiana Attorneys for the State of Louisiana Gwendolyn K. Brown Baton Rouge, Louisiana and James W. Craig New Orleans, Louisiana Attorneys for Defendant/Appellant, Abdullah Hakim El-Mumit
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
On Appeal from the 21st Judicial District Court, Parish of Tangipahoa, State of Louisiana
Trial Court No. 1731 The Honorable Robert H. Morrison, Judge Presiding Scott Perrilloux,
District Attorney
Patricia Parker-Amos
Charlotte Foster
David Guidry
Livingston, Louisiana Attorneys for the State of Louisiana Gwendolyn K. Brown
Baton Rouge, Louisiana
and
James W. Craig
New Orleans, Louisiana Attorneys for Defendant/Appellant,
Abdullah Hakim El-Mumit BEFORE: WELCH, CRAIN, AND HOLDRIDGE, JJ. CRAIN, J.
The defendant, Abdullah Hakim El-Mumit (formerly known as Thomas Sparks Jr.), was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to death for killing Deputy Edward Toefield, Jr., of the Tangipahoa Sheriff's Office. On direct appeal, the Louisiana Supreme Court affirmed the defendant's conviction, conditionally affirmed his death sentence, and remanded the matter to the district court for an evidentiary hearing on the defendant's claim that he received ineffective assistance of counsel during the penalty phase of his trial. State v. Sparks, 88-0017 (La. 5/11/11), 68 So. 3d 435, 499, cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 132 S.Ct. 1794, 182 L.Ed.2d 621 (2012). Thereafter, pursuant to an agreement between the state and defense, the district court vacated the defendant's death penalty sentence and sentenced the defendant to life imprisonment at hard labor without the benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence. The defendant now appeals his life sentence.
The defendant's name was legally changed from Thomas Sparks to Abdullah Hakim El-Mumit after his incarceration. See Sparks v. Ware, 509 So. 2d 811, 813 (La. App. 1 Cir. 1987).
Part of the stipulation was that the defendant would be released from solitary confinement, where he had been held for twenty-nine years.
The defense brief filed in connection with this appeal contains no assignments of error and was filed in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967), and State v. Jyles, 96-2669 (La. 12/12/97), 704 So. 2d 241 (per curiam). Defense counsel has reviewed the procedural history and facts of the case, and concludes that there are no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Counsel notes that the Louisiana Supreme Court affirmed the defendant's conviction after reviewing the twenty-three assignments of error he raised. Counsel further notes that the defendant's new sentence of life imprisonment (the only legal sentence that could be imposed as an alternative to death, which the supreme court specifically found was not excessive in light of the crime committed) was imposed pursuant to an agreement between the defendant and the state. 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 confirms that the defendant was informed of his right to file a pro se brief on his own behalf. The defendant has not filed a pro se brief.
In Anders, the United States Supreme Court instructed that 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. Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400. That request must, however, be accompanied by a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal. A copy of counsel's brief should be furnished to the indigent, and he should be allowed time to raise any points that he chooses; the court - not counsel - then proceeds, after a full examination of all the proceedings, to decide whether the case is wholly frivolous. Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400.
In Jyles, the Louisiana Supreme Court approved the procedures outlined in State v. Benjamin, 573 So. 2d 528 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1990), to comply with Anders. Appellate counsel must not only review the procedural history of the case and the evidence presented at trial, but his brief must also contain "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 State v. Mouton, 950981 (La. 4/28/95), 653 So. 2d 1176, 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, 120177 (La. App. 1 Cir. 12/28/12), 112 So. 3d 875, 878 (en banc).
Defense counsel has complied with all of the requirements necessary to file an Anders brief. Furthermore, this court has conducted an independent review of the entire record in this matter, including a review for error under Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure article 920(2), which reveals no non-frivolous issues or trial court rulings that arguably support the defendant's appeal. Accordingly, the defendant's sentence is affirmed, and the motion to withdraw is granted.
SENTENCE AFFIRMED; MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED.