State of Louisiana v. Lionel Paul Dugas

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

11-169

STATE OF LOUISIANA

VERSUS

LIONEL PAUL DUGAS

************

APPEAL FROM THE
SIXTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF IBERIA, NO. 09-2265
HONORABLE GERARD B. WATTIGNY, DISTRICT JUDGE

************

PHYLLIS M. KEATY
JUDGE

************

Court composed of Ulysses Gene Thibodeaux, Chief Judge, Marc T. Amy, and
Phyllis M. Keaty, Judges.

Amy, J., concurs in the result, affirming the defendant’s conviction and
sentence and granting the motion to withdraw.

CONVICTION AND SENTENCE AFFIRMED;
MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED.

J. Phil Haney
District Attorney
Angela B. Odinet
Assistant District Attorney
300 Iberia Street, Suite 200
New Iberia, Louisiana 70560
(337) 369-4420
Counsel for Appellee:
State of Louisiana

G. Paul Marx
Louisiana Appellate Project
Post Office Box 82389
Lafayette, Louisiana 70598
(337) 237-2537
Counsel for Defendant/Appellant:
Lionel Paul Dugas

Beth Smith Fontenot
Louisiana Appellate Project
Post Office Box 3183
Lake Charles, Louisiana 70602
(337) 491-3864
Counsel for Defendant/Appellant:
Lionel Paul Dugas

Lionel Paul Dugas, #297292
In Proper Person
Richwood Correctional Center
180 Pine Bayou Circle
Monroe, Louisiana 71202
Defendant

KEATY, Judge.

Defendant, Lionel Paul Dugas, pled guilty to unauthorized use of a motor

vehicle, in violation of La.R.S. 14:68.4. As part of the plea agreement, Defendant

agreed to plead guilty to forgery in trial court docket number 07-1638, which is

before this court in appellate docket number 11-165, and illegal possession of

stolen things over $500 in trial court docket number 07-2346, which is before this

court in appellate docket number 11-167. The plea agreement between the State

and Defendant included a provision that Defendant was ―to plead as a second

felony offender on a multiple offender bill of information.‖ On January 8, 2010,

Defendant was sentenced to serve ten years at hard labor, in accordance with the

plea agreement. Defendant’s motion for out of time appeal was filed on May 18,

2010, and was subsequently granted.

Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386

U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396 (1967) in this matter, as well as in appellate docket

numbers 11-165 and 11-167, alleging that the record does not contain any errors

that would support a reversal of Defendant’s conviction and sentence in this

matter. In appellate docket number 11-165, this court denied appellate counsel’s

motion to withdraw and ordered counsel to file a new brief addressing several

issues, including the voluntariness of Defendant’s guilty plea to the habitual

offender bill of information. State v. Dugas, an unpublished opinion bearing

docket number 11-165 (La.App. 3 Cir. 10/12/11), 2011 WL 4808205. Because of

the possible impact on the instant case, this matter was stayed pending receipt and

review of the briefs in appellate docket number 11-165. An opinion in that matter

has been rendered, and this matter is no longer stayed. After reviewing the record,

we affirm Defendant’s conviction and sentence and grant counsel’s motion to

withdraw.1

FACTS

On April 20, 2009, Carol Arceneaux dropped her vehicle off to be repaired

by Elijah Westley. The vehicle was subsequently reported missing. The vehicle

was located, and police were informed that Defendant had been working on the

vehicle and fled through a field when he saw police.

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 are no errors patent.

ANDERS ANALYSIS

Pursuant to Anders, Defendant’s appellate counsel has filed a brief stating

she could find no errors on appeal that would support reversal of the Defendant’s

conviction or sentence. Thus, counsel seeks to withdraw.

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 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

1
Appellate counsel asserted there were no non-frivolous errors in the case. Defendant
only appeals his habitual offender conviction, which was based on his plea to forgery in trial
court docket number 07-1638 (appellate docket number 11-165) and is the underlying conviction
of a controlled dangerous substance.
2

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 Anders and Benjamin, we performed a thorough review of the

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

transcripts. Defendant was properly charged by 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.

DECREE

Our review of the record has revealed no issues which would support an

assignment of error on appeal. Therefore, Defendant’s conviction and sentence are

affirmed and 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.

3