Salus Populi Suprema Lex Esto

About MoreLaw
Contact MoreLaw

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

Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw

Date: 12-01-2017

Case Style:


Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal - State of Louisiana

Case Number: 17-KA-293

Judge: Jude G. Gravois, Robert A. Chaisson, and Stephen J. Windhorst

Court: Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal - State of Louisiana

Plaintiff's Attorney: Paul D. Connick, Jr.
Terry M. Boudreaux

Defendant's Attorney: Bertha M. Hillman

Description: On February 7, 2007, defendant, Jeremy Davis, was charged by bill of
information with possession of MDMA and possession of cocaine. At his
arraignment, on March 19, 2007, Mr. Davis pled not guilty. On September 16, 2016,
Mr. Davis entered a guilty plea to both charges under Alford1 and he was sentenced
on each count to two years imprisonment with the Department of Corrections. The
transcript of the trial courtís proceedings on the day of Mr. Davisís plea and
sentencing reflects that the sentences were to run concurrently with one another and
with the sentence imposed in another matter, case number 07-863.
On April 11, 2017, Mr. Davis filed an Application for Post Conviction Relief.
On April 17, 2017, the trial court construed his pleading as a request for an out-of
time appeal, which it granted. In this appeal, defense counsel concludes that there
are no non-frivolous issues for review, and requests that this Court conduct an errors
patent review.
Mr. Davisís convictions were the result of guilty pleas, and, therefore, the
facts underlying the crimes of conviction are not fully developed in the record.
However, during Mr. Davisís plea colloquy, the State explained that if the matter

1 See North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 91 S.Ct. 160, 27 L.Ed.2d 162 (1970).

17-KA-293 2
proceeded to trial, it would prove that on or about January 6, 2007, defendant
possessed MDMA and cocaine in Jefferson Parish.
Under the procedure set forth in State v. Benjamin, 573 So.2d 528, 530 (La.
App. 4 Cir. 1990), defendantís appointed appellate counsel has filed an Anders brief
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, 242 (per curiam),
asserting that she has thoroughly reviewed the trial court record and could find no
non-frivolous issues to raise on appeal. Accordingly, appointed counsel requests
permission to withdraw as counsel of record.
In Anders, the United States Supreme Court stated that appointed appellate
counsel may request permission to withdraw if he or she finds the case to be wholly
frivolous after a conscientious examination of it. In State v. Jyles, the Louisiana
Supreme Court explained that an Anders brief must demonstrate by full discussion
and analysis that appellate counsel ďhas cast an advocateís 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.Ē Jyles, 704 So.2d at 241.
An appellate court must conduct an independent review of the trial court
record to determine whether the appeal is wholly frivolous. If, after an independent
review, the reviewing court determines there are no non-frivolous issues for appeal,
it may grant counselís motion to withdraw and affirm the defendantís 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. State v. Dufrene, 07-823 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2/19/08), 980 So.2d 31,

17-KA-293 3
Mr. Davisís appellate counsel asserts that after a detailed review of the
record, she could find no non-frivolous issues to raise on appeal. Our independent
review of the record supports appellate counselís assertion that there are no non
frivolous issues to be raised on appeal. The bill of information in this case
properly charged Mr. Davis and presents no non-frivolous issues supporting an
appeal. As required, it plainly and concisely states the essential facts constituting
the offenses charged. It also sufficiently identifies defendant and the crimes
charged. See La. C.Cr.P. arts. 464-466.
As reflected by the minute entries and commitment, Mr. Davis appeared at
each stage of the proceedings against him, including his arraignment, his plea and
his sentencing. Mr. Davisís presence does not present any issue that would support
an appeal. Accordingly, we affirm Mr. Davisís convictions and sentences, and grant
defense counselís motion to withdraw.
Errors Patent Review
Mr. Davis requests an errors patent review, which this Court routinely
conducts 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. We have reviewed the record and do
not find any errors that require corrective action.

Outcome: For the above discussed reasons, defendantís convictions and sentences are
affirmed and defense counselís motion to withdraw is granted.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:


Home | Add Attorney | Add Expert | Add Court Reporter | Sign In
Find-A-Lawyer By City | Find-A-Lawyer By State and City | Articles | Recent Lawyer Listings
Verdict Corrections | Link Errors | Advertising | Editor | Privacy Statement
© 1996-2018 MoreLaw, Inc. - All rights reserved.