Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.

Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw

Date: 03-24-2017

Case Style:

STATE OF LOUISIANA V. LANDIS CAMP

Case Number: 16-KA-473

Judge: Fredericka Homberg Wicker, Robert A. Chaisson, and Robert M. Murphy

Court: FIFTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF LOUISIANA

Plaintiff's Attorney:

Paul D. Connick, Jr.
Terry M. Boudreaux

Defendant's Attorney:

Bruce G. Whittaker

Description:


MoreLaw Performance Marketing


If It Does Not Work, It Is Free!



On December 22, 2015, the Jefferson Parish District Attorney’s Office filed
a bill of information charging defendant with fourth offense DWI, in violation of
La. R.S. 14:98(A) and 14:98.4(A) (count one)1, and aggravated criminal damage to
property, in violation of La. R.S. 14:55 (count two) . Defendant pled not guilty to
both charges at his arraignment on December 28, 2015. On February 24, 2016,
defendant’s motion to quash and motion to suppress evidence were both denied by
the trial court. On March 23, 2016, defendant pled guilty as charged to counts one
and two, after being advised of his Boykin2 rights. Pursuant to a plea agreement
with the State, for count one defendant was sentenced to ten years imprisonment at
hard labor, with two years to be served without benefit of probation, parole, or
suspension of sentence. The court also imposed a $5,000 fine. For count two,
defendant was sentenced to seven and one-half years imprisonment at hard labor.
Defendant’s sentences were ordered to be served concurrently with each other and
with his sentence in Twenty-Fourth Judicial District Court case number 15-6632.3
Defendant was granted an out-of-time appeal on July 28, 2016, and the instant
appeal follows.

FACTS

Because the instant convictions were the result of guilty pleas, the
underlying facts of the matter were not fully developed at trial. However, at the
time of defendant’s guilty plea, the State provided the following factual basis for
counts one and two:
[O]n or about the 29th day of October, 2015, the Defendant, Landis Camp violated Louisiana Revised Statute [. . . ] 14:98.A and 14:98.4(A) in that he did willfully and unlawfully operate a motor vehicle while intoxicated having three previous convictions for operating a vehicle while intoxicated, the first time being on August the 22nd, 2007, under Docket Number S1055054 in 2nd Parish Court, Division B; the second time being July 17th, 2008, under Docket Number S1079667, also in 2nd Parish Court, Division A; and the third time being December the 6th, 2011, under Docket Number 09-1161, in the 24th Judicial District --- Judicial District Court, Division G. And also on Count 2, on the same day, October the 29th, 2015, the Defendant, Landis Camp violated Louisiana Revised Statute 14:55, committing aggravated criminal damage to Jefferson Parish Sheriff’s Office property, a --- specifically a police unit belonging to Deputy Andre Nelson. All of these offenses occurred in the Parish of Jefferson.

ANDERS BRIEF

Under the procedure adopted by this Court in State v. Bradford, 95-929, pp.
3-4 (La. App. 5 Cir. 6/25/96), 676 So.2d 1108, 1110-11,4 appointed appellate
counsel has filed a brief asserting that he has thoroughly reviewed the trial court
record and cannot find any non-frivolous issues to raise on appeal. Accordingly,
pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493
(1967) and State v. Jyles, 96-2669 (La. 12/12/97), 704 So.2d 241 (per curiam),
appointed counsel requests permission to withdraw as counsel of record.
In Anders, supra, the United States Supreme Court stated that appointed
appellate counsel may request permission to withdraw if he finds his case to be
wholly frivolous after a conscientious examination of it.5 The request must be
accompanied by “‘a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably
support the appeal’” so as to provide the reviewing court “with a basis for
determining whether appointed counsel have fully performed their duty to support
their clients’ appeals to the best of their ability” and to assist the reviewing court
“in making the critical determination whether the appeal is indeed so frivolous that
counsel should be permitted to withdraw.” McCoy v. Court of Appeals of
Wisconsin, Dist. 1, 486 U.S. 429, 439, 108 S.Ct. 1895, 1902, 100 L.Ed.2d 440
(1988) (internal citation omitted).
In State v. Jyles, 96-2669 at 2, 704 So.2d at 241, the Louisiana Supreme
Court stated that an Anders brief need not tediously catalog every meritless pretrial
motion or objection made at trial with a detailed explanation of why the motions or
objections lack merit. The supreme court explained that an Anders brief must
demonstrate by full discussion and analysis that appellate counsel “has cast an
advocate’s eye over the trial record and considered whether any ruling made by the
trial court, subject to the contemporaneous objection rule, had a significant,
adverse impact on shaping the evidence presented to the jury for its consideration.”

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. Bradford, 95-929 at 4, 676 So.2d at 1110. If, after an
independent review, the reviewing court determines there are no non-frivolous
issues for appeal, it may grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the
defendant’s conviction and sentence. However, if the court finds any legal point
arguable on the merits, it may either deny the motion and order the court-appointed
attorney to file a brief arguing the legal point(s) identified by the court, or grant the
motion and appoint substitute appellate counsel. Id.
ANALYSIS
Defendant’s appellate counsel asserts that after a detailed review of the
record, he could find no non-frivolous issues to raise on appeal. Counsel indicates
that defendant pled guilty pursuant to a counseled plea agreement and did not
reserve the right to seek review of any of the trial court’s rulings under State v.
Crosby.6 Defense counsel also concludes that the record shows defendant was
“legally competent” in his mental capacity throughout the proceedings.7 Counsel
concludes that the plea bargain was advantageous to defendant, and that the trial
court’s colloquy was thorough and complete. Appellate counsel has filed a motion
to withdraw as attorney of record and has mailed defendant a copy of his brief.8
The State asserts that the record shows that prior to defendant’s guilty plea,
the district court fully explained to him the rights he was waiving, and defendant
affirmed his understanding. Further, defendant was informed of his right to appeal.
The State concludes, therefore, that defendant’s convictions and sentences should
be affirmed and that appellate counsel should be allowed to withdraw.
An independent review of the record supports appellate counsel’s assertion
that there are no non-frivolous issues to be raised on appeal.
The record shows that defendant was present at the sentencing and was
represented by counsel. Prior to sentencing, the trial court entered into a colloquy
with defendant wherein the court advised defendant of his Boykin9 rights and asked
defendant if he understood that he was waiving those rights by pleading guilty.
Defendant was advised of the sentences he would receive if he pled guilty.

Defendant’s sentences were in the statutory range for violations of La. R.S.
14:98(A) and 14:98.4(A) (count one) and La. R.S. 14:55 (count two).
Furthermore, La. C.Cr.P. art. 881.2(A)(2) provides that a defendant cannot appeal
or seek review of a sentence imposed in conformity with a plea agreement which
was set forth in the record at the time of the plea. Defendant was also properly
advised of the time limitations for filing post-conviction relief.
In his pro se brief, defendant asserts that the State failed to present evidence
of probable cause at his motion for preliminary examination. As previously noted,
defendant did not preserve his right to challenge the trial court’s ruling on this
motion pursuant to State v. Crosby, supra, as part of his guilty plea. Nevertheless,
the argument lacks merit and is directly contradicted by the record. The minute
entry of February 24, 2016, indicates that the State presented evidence at the
preliminary examination consisting of a DVD of “Dash and Body Camera
Footage,” as well as the testimony of Officer Leroy Victoriano of the Westwego
Police Department.
In his supplemental brief, defendant also makes general non-specific
references to other potential complaints. All specifications or assignments of error
must be briefed pursuant to Uniform Rules, Courts of Appeal, Rule 2-12.4, and the
appellate court may consider abandoned any specification or assignment of error
that has not been briefed. State v. Caulfield, 10-769 (La. App. 5 Cir. 5/24/11), 67
So.3d 600,608, writ denied, 11-1395 (La. 3/30/12), 85 So.3d 107. Defendant has
effectively failed to brief these potential grievances, and thus, we consider them
abandoned.
Because appellate counsel’s brief adequately demonstrates by full discussion
and analysis that he has reviewed the trial court proceedings and cannot identify
any basis for a non-frivolous appeal, and an independent review of the record
supports counsel’s assertion, we affirm defendant’s sentences and convictions and
grant appellate counsel’s motion to withdraw as attorney of record.
ERRORS PATENT DISCUSSION
Defendant requests an errors patent review. However, this Court routinely
reviews the record for errors patent in accordance with La. C.Cr.P. art. 920; State
v. Oliveaux, 312 So.2d 337 (La. 1975); and State v. Weiland, 556 So.2d 175 (La.
App. 5 Cir. 1990) regardless of whether defendant makes such a request. Our
review reveals no errors patent in this case which require correction.

Outcome:

< Accordingly, for the reasons provided herein, defendant’s convictions and sentences are affirmed and appellate counsel’s motion to withdraw as attorney of record is hereby granted. >

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments:



Find a Lawyer

Subject:
City:
State:
 

Find a Case

Subject:
County:
State: