State of Louisiana v. Paul R. Blossom, II

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

07-599

STATE OF LOUISIANA

VERSUS

PAUL R. BLOSSOM, II

**********

APPEAL FROM THE
THIRTY-SIXTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT,
PARISH OF BEAUREGARD, NO. CR-946-05
HONORABLE STUART S. KAY, JR., DISTRICT JUDGE

**********

J. DAVID PAINTER
JUDGE

**********

Court composed of Oswald A. Decuir, Elizabeth A. Pickett, and J. David Painter,
Judges.

CONVICTION AND SENTENCE AFFIRMED;
MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED.

Honorable David W. Burton, District Attorney
James R. Lestage, Assistant District Attorney
P.O. Box 99
DeRidder, LA 70634
Counsel for State of Louisiana

Peggy J. Sullivan, Attorney at Law
P.O. Box 2775
Monroe, LA 71207-2775
Counsel for Defendant-Appellant:
Paul R. Blossom, II

PAINTER, Judge.

Defendant, Paul R. Blossom, II, pled guilty to possession of cocaine and was

sentenced to serve three years at hard labor.1 Defendant now appeals, arguing that

his sentence is excessive and should not run consecutively with the sentence imposed

in CR-356-03. Defendant’s appellate counsel has filed an Anders brief in this matter,

urging that there are no non-frivolous issues in this matter. For the reasons that

follow, we affirm Defendant’s conviction and sentence and grant appellate counsel’s

motion to withdraw.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Defendant was arrested on September 24, 2005 for possession of cocaine. On

February 1, 2006, Defendant was charged by bill of information with possession of

cocaine, a violation of La.R.S. 40:967. Defendant entered a plea of not guilty on

March 7, 2006. As the result of a plea agreement, Defendant entered a plea of guilty

to possession of cocaine on March 16, 2007. Thereafter, Defendant was sentenced

to serve three years at hard labor. The sentence was ordered to run concurrently with

his sentence in CR-95-06, but consecutively with his sentence in CR-356-03 and any

sentence previously imposed. As part of the plea agreement, the State agreed to

waive the filing of habitual offender proceedings. A motion to reconsider sentence

was filed and denied on April 13, 2007. Defendant now appeals to this court,

asserting that the sentence is excessive and should not run consecutively with his

sentence in CR-356-03.

1
As part of the plea agreement, Defendant agreed to admit to a violation of his felony
probation in docket number CR-356-2003 and agreed to serve the remainder of his five-year
sentence consecutively to the sentence imposed in the case at bar. The State additionally agreed to
waive the filing of habitual offender proceedings.

1

Appellate counsel has filed an Anders brief, asserting that she can find no

errors on appeal that would support reversal of Defendant’s conviction or sentence.

Thus, counsel seeks to withdraw.

DISCUSSION

Errors Patent

In accordance with La.Code Crim.P. art. 920, all appeals are reviewed for

errors patent on the face of the record. After a thorough review of the record, we find

that there are no errors patent.

Anders Analysis

Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396 (1967),

Defendant’s appellate counsel has filed a brief stating that she could find no errors

on appeal that would support reversal of the Defendant’s conviction or sentence and

seeking to withdraw.

In State v. Benjamin, 573 So.2d 528 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1990), the fourth circuit

explained the Anders analysis:

When appointed counsel has filed a brief indicating that no
non-frivolous issues and no ruling arguably supporting an appeal were
found after a conscientious review of the record, Anders requires that
counsel move to withdraw. This motion will not be acted on until this
court performs a thorough independent review of the record after
providing the appellant an opportunity to file a brief in his or her own
behalf. This court’s review of the record will consist of (1) a review of
the bill of information or indictment to insure the defendant was
properly charged; (2) a review of all minute entries to insure the
defendant was present at all crucial stages of the proceedings, the jury
composition and verdict were correct and the sentence is legal; (3) a
review of all pleadings in the record; (4) a review of the jury sheets; and
(5) a review of all transcripts to determine if any ruling provides an
arguable basis for appeal. Under C.Cr.P. art. 914.1(D) this Court will
order that the appeal record be supplemented with pleadings, minute
entries and transcripts when the record filed in this Court is not
sufficient to perform this review.

Id. at 531.

2

Pursuant to Anders and Benjamin, we have performed a thorough review of the

record, including pleadings, minute entries, the charging instrument, and the

transcripts. Defendant was properly charged in a bill of information, was present and

represented by counsel at all crucial stages of the proceedings, and entered a free and

voluntary guilty plea after properly being advised of his rights in accordance with

Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 89 S.Ct. 1709 (1969). Additionally, Defendant

received a legal sentence.

We have found no issues which would support an assignment of error on

appeal. Therefore, counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted.

Pro Se Assignment of Error

In his pro se assignment of error, Defendant contends that his sentence is

excessive and asserts that his sentence of three years should not run consecutively

with his sentence in CR-356-03. Appellate counsel suggests this issue is not properly

before the court for review because Defendant was sentenced in accordance with a

plea agreement set forth in the record at the time the plea was entered. However, we

find that the record is unclear as to whether Defendant was sentenced in accordance

with a sentencing recommendation or if there was an agreed upon sentence in this

case. Therefore, we will review this issue.

The supreme court discussed the standard applicable to excessive sentencing

claims in State v. Williams, 03-3514, p. 14 (La. 12/13/04), 893 So.2d 7, 16-17, as

follows:

The trial judge is given a wide discretion in the imposition of
sentences within the statutory limits, and the sentence imposed by him
should not be set aside as excessive in the absence of a manifest abuse
of his discretion. State v. Thompson, 2002-0333 (La.4/9/03), 842 So.2d
330; State v. Washington, 414 So.2d 313 (La.1982); State v.
Abercrumbia, 412 So.2d 1027 (La.1982). A trial judge is in the best
position to consider the aggravating and mitigating circumstances of a
particular case, and, therefore, is given broad discretion in sentencing.

3

State v. Cook, 95-2785 (La.5/31/96), 674 So.2d 957. On review, an
appellate court does not determine whether another sentence may have
been more appropriate, but whether the trial court abused its discretion.
Id.

In this case, Defendant pled guilty to possession of cocaine and was sentenced

to serve three years at hard labor. Louisiana Revised Statute 40:967(C)(2) provides

for a sentence of imprisonment with or without hard labor for not more than five

years.

Defendant was on probation at the time of the current offense and admitted to

a violation of that probation at the sentencing hearing for the current offense. For this

reason, we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when imposing the

sentence at issue. Furthermore, as part of the plea agreement, the State agreed to

waive the filing of habitual offender proceedings.

Defendant also asserts that his sentence should have been ordered to run

concurrently to the sentence in CR-356-03. That argument was not made to the trial

court at the time of sentencing or in Defendant’s motion to reconsider sentence.

Thus, this issue is not properly before the court for review. Uniform Rules, Courts

of Appeal—Rule 1-3.

For these reasons, this assignment of error lacks merit.

DECREE

Defendant’s conviction and sentence are affirmed. Appellate counsel’s motion

to withdraw is granted.

CONVICTION AND SENTENCE AFFIRMED; MOTION TO WITHDRAW
GRANTED.

This opinion is NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION.
Uniform Rules—Courts of Appeal. Rule 2-16.3.

4

KA07-374

COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

STATE OF LOUISIANA

STATE OF LOUISIANA
Plaintiff-Appellee

VERSUS

PAUL R. BLOSSOM, II
Defendant-Appellant

On Appeal from the Thirty-Sixth Judicial District Court, Docket Number CR946-
2005, Parish of Beauregard, State of Louisiana, Honorable Stuart S. Kay, Jr., Judge.

ORDER

After consideration of appellate counsel’s request to withdraw as counsel and

the appeal presently pending in the above-captioned matter;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that appellate counsel’s motion to withdraw is

granted.

THUS DONE AND SIGNED this _____ day of October, 2007.

COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

_______________________________
Judge Oswald A. Decuir

_________________________________
Judge Elizabeth A. Pickett

_________________________________
Judge J. David Painter