State of Louisiana v. Winda Darnell Wilturner

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

09-1423

STATE OF LOUISIANA

VERSUS

WINDA DARNELL WILTURNER

**********
APPEAL FROM THE
NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT,
PARISH OF RAPIDES, NO. 296,709
HONORABLE JOHN C. DAVIDSON, DISTRICT JUDGE

**********

J. DAVID PAINTER
JUDGE

**********

Court composed of Jimmie C. Peters, Marc T. Amy, and J. David Painter, Judges.

CONVICTIONS AND SENTENCES AFFIRMED;
MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED.

Hon. James A. Downs, District Attorney
Ninth Judicial District
701 Murray Street
Alexandria, LA 71301
Counsel for Appellee:
State of Louisiana

Carey J. Ellis, III
Louisiana Appellate Project
707 Julia Street
Rayville, LA 71269
Counsel for Defendant/Appellant:
Winda Darnell Wilturner

PAINTER, Judge.

Defendant, Winda Darnell Wilturner, appeals the sentences imposed following

his pleas of guilty to the charges of possession with intent to distribute cocaine and

possession of methadone. For the following reasons, we affirm Defendant’s

convictions and sentences and grant appellate counsel’s motion to withdraw.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On April 30, 2009, Defendant was charged by bill of information with

possession with intent to distribute cocaine and possession of methadone, both

violations of La.R.S. 40:967. Defendant entered guilty pleas to the charges in

exchange for sentences of fifteen years at hard labor for possession with intent to

distribute and five years at hard labor for possession of methadone, with the sentences

to run concurrently to each other and to any other sentence Defendant was then

serving. Additionally, the State agreed to not file a habitual offender bill. At the

guilty plea proceeding, a factual basis for the plea was not set forth by the State.1 The

bill of information indicated that on or about February 13, 2009, Defendant

knowingly and intentionally possessed cocaine with the intent to distribute and

intentionally possessed methadone. The trial court sentenced Defendant in

accordance with the plea agreement.

Defendant, pro se, filed a “Motion for Appeal” which was granted.2 Appointed

appellate counsel filed an Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396 (1967)

brief in this matter. No brief was filed on behalf of Defendant.

1
In State v. Collins, 95-1503, p. 7 (La.App. 3 Cir. 5/8/96), 677 So.2d 500, 505, writ denied,
96-1794 (La. 8/27/97), 699 So.2d 45, this court, citing State v. Linear, 600 So.2d 113, 115 (La.App.
2 Cir. 1992), stated: “When a guilty plea is otherwise voluntary, there is no necessity to ascertain a
factual basis for that plea unless the accused protests his innocence or for some other reason the trial
court is put on notice that there is a need for such an inquiry.” In this case, Defendant entered an
uncontested plea, thus, the State was not required to set forth a factual basis to support the plea.
2
The “Plea of Guilty and Waiver of Rights” form, signed by Defendant, included the
following paragraph: “In exchange to the above charge and sentence bargained for, I understand this
matter will be finalized and waive all rights to file any post trial motions including but not limited
to an appeal of my conviction and sentence. . . .” Since the trial court granted Defendant’s appeal,
and the State has not objected, the validity and/or applicability of this waiver has not been addressed.

1

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 reviewing the record, we find that there

is one error patent but that this error patent is harmless and/or waived.

The bill of information erroneously cited La.R.S. 40:967 “A1G” for possession

with the intent to distribute cocaine. The correct citation for that offense is La.R.S.

40:967(A)(1). Subsection (G) of La.R.S. 40:967 provides special restrictions for

those persons to whom subsection (F) applies. However, subsection (F) is not

applicable to the present Defendant, thus, subsection (G) is likewise inapplicable.

The erroneous citation of a statute, in the charging instrument, is harmless error as

long as the error did not mislead the defendant to his prejudice. La.Code Crim.P. art.

464. After reviewing the face of the record, we find that Defendant does not allege

any prejudice because of the erroneous citation mentioned above. Additionally, by

entering an unqualified guilty plea, Defendant waived review of the pre-plea non-

jurisdictional defect. State v. Crosby, 338 So.2d 584 (La.1976). Thus, the citation

error is harmless and/or waived.

Anders Review

Pursuant to Anders, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, Defendant’s appellate counsel

filed a brief stating that: “After a thorough review of all the pleadings filed in the

District Court, the court proceedings, the bill of information . . . and all transcript

contained in the record, no non-frivolous issues can be advanced by appellate

review.”

In State v. Benjamin, 573 So.2d 528, 531 (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

2

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.

Pursuant to the Anders analysis enunciated in Benjamin, this court has

performed a thorough review of the record, including pleadings, minute entries, the

bill of information, and the transcript. This review indicates that Defendant was

properly charged by bill of information, that he was present and represented by

counsel at all stages of the proceedings, and that he entered free and voluntary guilty

pleas after being advised of his rights pursuant to Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238,

89 S.Ct. 1709 (1969). Furthermore, the sentences imposed were legal.

Since our review of the record has not revealed any issues which would support

an assignment of error on appeal, appellate counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted.

DECREE

For all of the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s convictions and sentences are

affirmed. Appellate counsel’s motion to withdraw is hereby granted.

CONVICTIONS AND SENTENCES AFFIRMED; MOTION TO WITHDRAW
GRANTED.

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

3

KA 09-1423

COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

STATE OF LOUISIANA

STATE OF LOUISIANA
Plaintiff-Appellee

VERSUS

WINDA DARNELL WILTURNER
Defendant-Appellant

On Appeal from the Ninth Judicial District Court, Docket Number 296,709, Parish
of Rapides, State of Louisiana, Honorable John C. Davidson, Judge.

ORDER

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

the appeal pending in the above-captioned matter;

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

granted.

THUS DONE AND SIGNED this ____ day of ______________, 2010.

COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

_______________________
Judge Jimmie C. Peters

________________________
Judge Marc T. Amy

_________________________
Judge J. David Painter

4