State of Louisiana Versus Kevin Johnson

STATE OF LOUISIANA NO. 24-KA-62

VERSUS FIFTH CIRCUIT

KEVIN JOHNSON COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF LOUISIANA

ON APPEAL FROM THE TWENTY-NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF ST. CHARLES, STATE OF LOUISIANA
NO. 18,669, DIVISION "D"
HONORABLE M. LAUREN LEMMON, JUDGE PRESIDING

October 16, 2024

SCOTT U. SCHLEGEL
JUDGE

Panel composed of Judges Fredericka Homberg Wicker,
John J. Molaison, Jr., and Scott U. Schlegel

RESENTENCE AFFIRMED AS AMENDED;
REMANDED FOR CLARIFICATION OF
CONCURRENT NATURE OF SENTENCE
AND FOR CORRECTION OF THE UNIFORM
COMMITMENT ORDER; MOTION TO
WITHDRAW GRANTED
SUS
FHW
JJM

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE,
STATE OF LOUISIANA, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Elizabeth B. Murrill
J. Taylor Gray
J. Bryant Clark, Jr.

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT,
KEVIN JOHNSON
Prentice L. White

SCHLEGEL, J.

Defendant, Kevin Johnson, filed this appeal regarding his resentencing on

remand from this Court. His appellate counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and a motion to

withdraw alleging that there are no non-frivolous issues to raise on appeal. After a

thorough review of the record, we agree with counsel’s assessment of the case and

affirm defendant’s resentencing as amended below. We also remand the matter to

the trial court for clarification of the concurrent nature of the sentence. We further

grant appellate counsel’s motion to withdraw as counsel of record for defendant.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

This is defendant’s second appeal.

Defendant was charged with one count of distribution of methamphetamine

weighing less than twenty-eight grams in violation of La. R.S. 40:967(A)(1). On

November 10, 2021, a six-person jury unanimously found defendant guilty as

charged. On February 16, 2022, the State filed a habitual offender bill of

information, alleging defendant to be a fourth-felony offender, to which defendant

pled not guilty. On May 2, 2022, after a contradictory hearing, the trial court

adjudicated defendant a fourth-felony offender pursuant to La. R.S. 15:529.1. The

trial court sentenced defendant as a fourth-felony offender to sixteen years

imprisonment at hard labor without the benefit of probation, parole or suspension

of sentence under State v. Dorthey, 623 So.2d 1276 (La. 1993), despite the

mandatory minimum sentence for a fourth-felony offender being twenty years

imprisonment.

Defendant filed an appeal challenging only his conviction. The State filed a

notice of intent seeking supervisory review of the trial court’s deviation from the

mandatory minimum sentence for a fourth-felony offender.

24-KA-62 1

On August 9, 2023, this Court affirmed defendant’s conviction for

distribution of methamphetamine. State v. Johnson, 22-383 (La. App. 5 Cir.

8/9/23), 370 So.3d 150, 157-61. As to the State’s writ application, this Court

found that the reasons given by the trial court, including defendant’s age, military

history, drug addiction, family support, decision to go to trial, cooperative behavior

during incarceration, and participation in jail programs, did not provide clear and

convincing evidence that defendant was exceptional so as to receive a downward

deviation from the mandatory minimum sentence. State v. Johnson, 22-300 (La.

App. 5 Cir. 8/9/23), 370 So.3d 140, 149. This Court held that defendant did not

demonstrate unusual or exceptional circumstances to justify a reduced sentence

and emphasized the habitual offender statute’s presumption of constitutionality.

Id. at 147. This Court vacated defendant’s enhanced sentence and remanded for

resentencing.

On October 5, 2023, following this Court’s opinion, the trial court

resentenced defendant to the mandatory minimum of twenty years imprisonment to

be served without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence. Both

parties acknowledged, and the trial court concurred, that this Court’s ruling did not

overturn or challenge the trial court’s classification as a fourth-felony offender.

On November 6, 2023, defendant filed a motion to reconsider sentence and a

motion for appeal. On November 29, 2023, the trial court denied defendant’s

motion to reconsider sentence and granted defendant’s notice of appeal. This

second appeal now follows.

Defendant’s appellate counsel has filed an Anders brief regarding his

enhanced sentence. Defendant has also filed a pro se supplemental appellate brief.

FACTS

The underlying facts of the case are not relevant to defendant’s second

appeal. Nevertheless, a full narrative can be found in this Court’s previous

24-KA-62 2

opinions regarding defendant’s first appeal and the State’s writ application. See

State v. Johnson, 370 So.3d 140; State v. Johnson, 370 So.3d 150.

ANDERS BRIEF

Under the procedure adopted by this Court in State v. Bradford, 95-929 (La.

App. 5 Cir. 6/25/96), 676 So.2d 1108, 1110-11, 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, supra, and State v. Jyles, 96-2669 (La. 12/12/97), 704 So.2d 241,

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 finds his case to be wholly

frivolous after a conscientious examination of it. 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), citing Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S.Ct. at 1400.

In Jyles, supra, the Louisiana Supreme Court stated that an Anders brief

need not tediously catalog every meritless pre-trial motion or objection made at

trial with a detailed explanation of why the motions or objections lack merit. The

Louisiana 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

24-KA-62 3

the contemporaneous objection rule, had a significant, adverse impact on shaping

the evidence presented to the jury for its consideration.” Id.

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, 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.

DISCUSSION

Defendant’s appellate counsel asserts that he previously argued issues on the

merits relative to Johnson’s conviction and sentence during the first appeal and in

response to the State’s writ application. He asserts that after a detailed review of

the record, he could find no non-frivolous issues to raise on this appeal, which

involves sentencing only. Counsel explains that the State’s argument coupled with

both decisions from this Court on August 9, 2023, in the first appeal and in the

State’s writ application, convinced the trial court to impose the mandatory

minimum sentence. Appellate counsel filed a motion to withdraw as attorney of

record that states he has notified defendant of the filing of this motion and his right

to file a pro se brief in this appeal. As discussed further below, defendant filed a

pro se brief raising four assignments of errors.

In this second appeal, defendant may only seek review of issues related to

his resentencing. State v. Beason, 17-254 (La. App. 5 Cir. 11/15/17), 232 So.3d

1255, 1259, writ denied, 17-2170 (La. 11/20/18), 256 So.3d 998, citing State v.

Torres, 05-260 (La. App. 5 Cir. 11/29/05), 919 So.2d 730, 733, writ denied, 06-

24-KA-62 4

0697 (La. 10/6/06), 938 So.2d 65. Because this Court has previously affirmed

defendant’s convictions and habitual offender finding, the only portion of the

record now subject to review is the most recent resentencing.

The record shows that defendant was present at his resentencing on October

5, 2023, and was represented by counsel. Defendant’s twenty-year enhanced

sentence is the mandatory minimum and falls within the sentencing range set forth

in La. R.S. 40:967(B)(1) and La. R.S. 15:529.1.1 The trial court resentenced

defendant in compliance with this Court’s order in defendant’s first appeal. Upon

review, we find that the trial court did not abuse its broad sentencing discretion and

that defendant’s sentence is supported by the record.

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 our independent review of the record

supports counsel’s assertion, appellate counsel’s motion to withdraw as attorney of

record is granted.

PRO SE ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR

We next consider defendant’s pro se assignments of error: (1) his

conviction was unconstitutional; (2) he is factually innocent; (3) he received

ineffective assistance of counsel; and (4) law enforcement committed perjury.

His pro se assignments of error numbers 1, 2, and 4 do not relate to

resentencing though, and may not be considered in this appeal. In his third claim,

defendant argues he received ineffective assistance of counsel on several grounds,

1
At the time of this offense, La. R.S. 40:967 B(1)(a) provided that an individual who is convicted of
distribution of methamphetamine weighing less than twenty-eight grams shall be imprisoned, with or
without hard labor, for not less than one year nor more than ten years. Pursuant to La. R.S.
15:529.1(A)(4), if the fourth or subsequent felony is such that, upon a first conviction the offender would
be punishable by imprisonment for any term less than his natural life, then the offender shall be sentenced
to a determinate term not less than the longest prescribed for a first conviction but in no event less than
twenty years and not more than his natural life. Consequently, defendant was subject to an enhanced
sentence of twenty years imprisonment to life imprisonment at hard labor without the benefit of probation
or suspension of sentence. State v Johnson, 370 So.3d 140, 148.

24-KA-62 5

including, that his prior counsel: (1) failed to attack law enforcement witnesses

regarding their arrest and release of the confidential informant; (2) failed to attack

two of the detectives for their alleged perjury; (3) failed to assert that there was no

hand-to-hand transaction; (4) failed to attack the confidential informant based on

her criminal history; (5) failed to request a drug test for the confidential informant

before or after her testimony; (6) did not point out that law enforcement did not

obtain a search warrant for defendant’s home; and (7) failed to effectively argue

for an impartial jury.

Generally, an ineffective assistance of counsel claim is most appropriately

addressed through an application for post-conviction relief filed in the trial court

where a full evidentiary hearing can be conducted. State v. Lampton, 17-489 (La.

App. 5 Cir. 5/23/18), 249 So.3d 235, 244–45; State v. Simmons, 13-258 (La. App.

5 Cir. 2/26/14), 136 So.3d 358, 370, writ denied, 14-0674 (La. 10/31/14), 152

So.3d 151. This appeal is only for resentencing. Accordingly, we decline to

address this assignment of error, which may be raised in an application for post-

conviction relief.

ERRORS PATENT REVIEW

This Court already performed an errors patent review of the original record

in this case at the time of defendant’s first appeal, so defendant is only entitled to

an errors patent review of the record on resentencing at this time. State v.

Gassenberger, 02-658 (La. App. 5 Cir. 12/11/02), 836 So.2d 271, 274.

The record on resentencing was reviewed for errors patent. La. C.Cr.P. art.

920; State v. Oliveaux, 312 So.2d 337 (La.1975); State v. Weiland, 556 So.2d 175

(La. App. 5th Cir.1990). The following errors patent require corrective action.

First, defendant was resentenced to twenty years of imprisonment at hard

labor without the benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence. This

sentence was reflected in the transcript, the minute entry, and the Louisiana

24-KA-62 6

Uniform Commitment Order (UCO). The multiple offender statute, La. R.S.

15:529.1, however, does not provide for a restriction on parole. The underlying

statute, La. R.S. 40:967, also does not provide for a restriction of parole. Thus,

defendant’s enhanced sentence should not have been imposed with a restriction on

parole.

When a sentencing error involves the imposition of restrictions beyond what

the legislature has authorized in the sentencing statute, the Louisiana Supreme

Court has ruled that the appellate courts “should not rely on La. R.S. 15:301.1(A)

to correct the error as a matter of law but should correct the sentence on its own

authority under La. C.Cr.P. art. 882 to correct an illegal sentence ‘at any time.’”

State v. Payne, 17-12 (La. App. 5 Cir. 5/17/17), 220 So.3d 882, 888, citing State v

Sanders, 04-17 (La. 5/14/04), 876 So.2d 42. Accordingly, we amend defendant’s

sentence to delete the restriction on parole.

Second, a discrepancy exists between the minute entry, the UCO, and the

transcript involving the concurrent nature of defendant’s sentences. The minute

entry and the UCO provide that defendant’s enhanced sentence is to run concurrent

with any other time he may be serving. But the transcript provides that the trial

court did not specifically order that the defendant’s sentence be run concurrent

with all other sentences. Instead, the trial court resentenced defendant “consistent

with the principles enunciated in the opinion of the Fifth Circuit and sentence[d]

him to the mandatory minimum of 20 years with the Department of Corrections

without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence.” In its original

sentence, the trial court imposed a sentence of sixteen years to run concurrent with

any other sentence defendant may be serving. Thus, the transcript is ambiguous as

to whether resentencing “consistent with the principles enunciated in the opinion of

the Fifth Circuit” includes an order that this sentence run concurrent with any other

sentence defendant may be serving. See State v. Chirlow, 18-359 (La. App. 5 Cir.

24-KA-62 7

12/12/18), 260 So.3d 1282, 1290 (Transcript was ambiguous as to consecutive

nature of defendant’s sentences); State v. Reid, 16-201 (La. App. 5 Cir. 9/22/16),

202 So.3d 589, 593 (Remand for clarification was required as to the consecutive

nature of defendant’s sentences).

Third, we note that the adjudication date of the UCO is incorrect in that it

references November 10, 2021, the date of the jury trial, while defendant was

adjudicated as a fourth-felony offender on May 2, 2022.

Accordingly, defendant’s sentence is affirmed as amended except to remove

the parole restriction, and to remand for clarification of sentence as it relates to the

concurrent nature of defendant’s sentence with other existing sentences. We

further order the trial court to correct the UCO as set forth herein, to remove the

restriction on parole, and correct the adjudication date. We further order the Clerk

of Court for the 29th Judicial District Court to transmit the corrected UCO to the

officer in charge of the institution to which defendant has been sentenced and to

the Department of Corrections’ legal department.

Incomplete Advisal

Additionally, the trial court did not provide a complete advisal to defendant

of the prescriptive period to seek post-conviction relief pursuant to La. C.Cr.P. art.

930.8. The sentencing transcript reflects that the judge advised: “I’ll tell you that

there’s a two-year time limitation to file postconviction relief, which begins to run

once all appellate delays run and this conviction becomes final.” This advisal is

incomplete.

It is well-settled that if a trial court fails to advise, or provides an incomplete

advisal, pursuant to La. C.Cr.P. art. 930.8, the appellate court may correct this error

by informing the defendant of the applicable prescriptive period for post-

conviction relief by means of its opinion. See State v. Tate, 22-570 (La. App. 5

Cir. 6/21/23), 368 So.3d 236, 250. Accordingly, we advise defendant that no

24-KA-62 8

application for post-conviction relief, including applications that seek an out-of-

time appeal, shall be considered if filed more than two years after the judgment of

conviction and sentence has become final under the provisions of La. C.Cr.P. arts.

914 or 922.

DECREE

For these reasons, defendant’s resentencing is affirmed as amended to

remove the restriction on parole. The matter is remanded to the trial court for

clarification of the concurrent nature of the sentence with other existing sentences,

and for correcting the Uniform Commitment Order as described above. Appellate

counsel’s motion to withdraw as attorney of record for defendant is granted.

RESENTENCE AFFIRMED AS AMENDED;
REMANDED FOR CLARIFICATION OF
CONCURRENT NATURE OF SENTENCE AND FOR
CORRECTION OF THE UNIFORM COMMITMENT
ORDER; MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED

24-KA-62 9

SUSAN M. CHEHARDY CURTIS B. PURSELL

CHIEF JUDGE CLERK OF COURT

SUSAN S. BUCHHOLZ
FREDERICKA H. WICKER
CHIEF DEPUTY CLERK
JUDE G. GRAVOIS
MARC E. JOHNSON
STEPHEN J. WINDHORST LINDA M. WISEMAN
JOHN J. MOLAISON, JR.
FIRST DEPUTY CLERK
SCOTT U. SCHLEGEL
TIMOTHY S. MARCEL FIFTH CIRCUIT
MELISSA C. LEDET
JUDGES 101 DERBIGNY STREET (70053)
DIRECTOR OF CENTRAL STAFF
POST OFFICE BOX 489
GRETNA, LOUISIANA 70054 (504) 376-1400

(504) 376-1498 FAX
www.fifthcircuit.org

NOTICE OF JUDGMENT AND CERTIFICATE OF DELIVERY
I CERTIFY THAT A COPY OF THE OPINION IN THE BELOW-NUMBERED MATTER HAS BEEN DELIVERED
IN ACCORDANCE WITH UNIFORM RULES - COURT OF APPEAL, RULE 2-16.4 AND 2-16.5 THIS DAY
OCTOBER 16, 2024 TO THE TRIAL JUDGE, CLERK OF COURT, COUNSEL OF RECORD AND ALL PARTIES
NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL, AS LISTED BELOW:

24-KA-62
E-NOTIFIED
29TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT (CLERK)
HONORABLE M. LAUREN LEMMON (DISTRICT JUDGE)
HONORABLE ROCHELLE C. FAHRIG (DISTRICT JUDGE)
ELIZABETH B. MURRILL (APPELLEE) J. TAYLOR GRAY (APPELLEE)

MAILED
PRENTICE L. WHITE (APPELLANT) J. BRYANT CLARK, JR. (APPELLEE) KEVIN JOHNSON #331020 (APPELLANT)
ATTORNEY AT LAW ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL NELSON COLEMAN CORRECTIONAL
LOUISIANA APPELLATE PROJECT LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE CENTER
16731 CICERO AVENUE POST OFFICE BOX 94005 5061 HIGHWAY 3127
BATON ROUGE, LA 70816 BATON ROUGE, LA 70804 KILLONA, LA 70057

HON. JOEL T. CHAISSON, II (APPELLEE)
DISTRICT ATTORNEY
J. WILLIAM STARR (APPELLEE)
ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY
TWENTY-NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
COURT
POST OFFICE BOX 680
HAHNVILLE, LA 70057