State Of Louisiana v. Jordan Singletary

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST CIRCUIT

2021 KA 1211

STATE OF LOUISIANA

VERSUS

JORDAN SINGLETARY

Judgment Rendered: 1 r 1 4

On Appeal from the Nineteenth Judicial District Court
In and for the Parish of East Baton Rouge
State of Louisiana
Docket No. 02- 19- 0327

Honorable Bonnie F. Jackson,' Judge Presiding

Hillar C. Moore, III Counsel for Appellee
District Attorney State of Louisiana
Jerri Ann Lee
Assistant District Attorney
Baton Rouge, Louisiana

Lieu T. Vo Clark
Counsel for Defendant/ Appellant
Louisiana Appellate Project
Jordan Singletary
Mandeville, Louisiana

BEFORE:
MCCLENDON, WELCH, AND THERIOT, JJ.

1 Judge Jackson, who presided over this matter, was succeeded by the Honorable Eboni Johnson Rose,
elected in December 2020 to Division K/ Section 4 of the 19th JDC.

McCLENDON, 3.

The defendant, Jordan Singletary, was charged by bill of information with

molestation of a juvenile, a violation of LSA- R. S. 14: 81. 2. The defendant pled not guilty
to the charge.
The defendant subsequently withdrew his not guilty plea and, at a

Boykin hearing, pled guilty to the amended charge of indecent behavior with juveniles,
a violation of LSA- R. S. 14: 81.
See Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U. S. 238, 243, 89 S. Ct.
1709, 1712, 23 L. Ed. 2d 274 ( 1969).
The defendant was sentenced to seven years

imprisonment at hard labor with the first two years of the sentence to be served
without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence. The defendant was

given credit for time served, the balance of the defendant's sentence was subsequently
suspended,
and the defendant was placed on active supervised probation for three
years. The defendant now appeals. We affirm the conviction and sentence.

FACTS

Because the defendant pled guilty, the facts were not fully developed. At the

Boykin hearing, the prosecutor informed the trial court that the defendant previously
dated the mother of J. W.,
the victim, and agreed to watch J. W. between September 28,
2018 and September 30, 2018. When J. W.' s mother went to pick up J. W., she

overheard the defendant telling J. W. to rub his penis. Additionally, J. W. told her

mother that the defendant showed herpornography and attempted to touch her
breasts through her shirt.

ISSUES PRESENTED

Appellate counsel for the defendant has filed a motion to withdraw as counsel of
record,
together with a brief referencing the procedures outlined in Anders v.
California, 386 U. S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 ( 1967), State v. Tyles, 96-

2669 ( La. 12/ 12/ 97), 704 So. 2d 241 ( per curiam),
and State v. Benjamin, 573 So. 2d
528 ( La. App. 4 Cir. 1990).
Appellate counsel avers that, after a conscientious and

thorough review of the record, she has found no nonfrivolous issues to raise on appeal
and no ruling of the trial court that arguably supports an appeal.

Appellate counsel has notified the defendant of the filing of this motion and
informed him of his right to file a pro se brief.
The defendant has not filed a pro se
brief with this court.

This court has performed an independent, thorough review of the pleadings,
minute entries, bill of information, and transcripts in the appeal record. The defendant

was properly charged by bill of information; the bill was signed by the District Attorney
or an assistant district attorney.
The defendant was present and represented by
counsel at arraignment, sentencing, and guilty plea. The sentence imposed is legal in
all respects.
See Benjamin, 573 So. 2d at 531.

While appellate counsel makes no specific argument on appeal, she asks us to
review the record for patent error.
This court routinely reviews the record for error
under LSA- C. Cr.P. art. 920( 2),
whether or not such a request is made by a defendant or
defense counsel. Under LSA- C. Cr. P. art. 920( 2),
we are limited in our review to errors

discoverable by a mere inspection of the pleadings and proceedings without inspection
of the evidence.
See State v. Price, 2005- 2514 ( La. App. 1 Cir. 12/ 28/ 06), 952 So. 2d
112, 123- 25 ( en banc), writ denied, 2007- 0130 ( La. 2/ 22/ 08),
976 So. 2d 1277. After a

careful review of the record in these proceedings, we have found no reversible patent
errors.

Our independent review reveals no nonfrivolous issues which arguably support
this appeal. Accordingly,
the defendant's conviction and sentence are affirmed.
Appellate counsel' s motion to withdraw as attorney of record is hereby granted.
CONCLUSION

CONVICTION AND SENTENCE AFFIRMED;
ATTORNEY OF RECORD GRANTED. MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS

3