State of Louisiana v. Jarvis Joseph Joubert

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

12-554

STATE OF LOUISIANA

VERSUS

JARVIS JOSEPH JOUBERT

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

APPEAL FROM THE
THIRTIETH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF VERNON, NO. 81536
HONORABLE VERNON B. CLARK, DISTRICT JUDGE

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

PHYLLIS M. KEATY
JUDGE

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

Court composed of Oswald A. Decuir, Billy H. Ezell, and Phyllis M. Keaty,
Judges.

CONVICTION AND SENTENCE AFFIRMED.
MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED.

Asa Allen Skinner
District Attorney
Post Office Box 1188
Leesville, Louisiana 71496-1188
(337) 239-2008
Counsel for Appellee:
State of Louisiana

Edward K. Bauman
Louisiana Appellate Project
Post Office Box 1641
Lake Charles, Louisiana 70602-1641
(337) 491-0570
Counsel for Defendant/Appellant:
Jarvis Joseph Joubert

Jarvis Joseph Joubert
#591981
Avoyelles Marksville Detention Center
675 Government Street
Marksville, Louisiana 71351-2945

KEATY, Judge.

Defendant, Jarvis Joseph Joubert, was charged by bill of information with

armed robbery involving the use of a firearm, a violation of La.R.S. 14:64 and

La.R.S. 14:64.3. Defendant entered a plea of not guilty. The bill was later

amended to delete the portion of the charge that alleged Defendant had used a

firearm in the commission of the armed robbery. On that same date, Defendant

changed his plea from not guilty to guilty of the responsive verdict of first degree

robbery, a violation of La.R.S. 14:64.1. The parties agreed to a sentencing cap of

fifteen years. The trial court sentenced Defendant to fifteen years at hard labor

without benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence. Defendant filed a

motion to reconsider his sentence on grounds of excessiveness. The trial court

denied the motion without a hearing.

Defendant filed a motion for appeal on February 27, 2012, and an order

allowing the appeal was signed on February 28, 2012. Appellate counsel has filed

a brief in this matter pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396

(1967), alleging that no non-frivolous issues exist on which to base an appeal and

seeking to withdraw as Defendant‘s counsel. For the following reasons, we affirm

Defendant‘s conviction and sentence and grant counsel‘s motion to withdraw.

DISCUSSION

Facts

According to the factual basis read at the guilty plea hearing, Defendant,

along with another man, committed an armed robbery at the Apache Rose Tattoo

Parlor in Leesville, Louisiana, on Christmas Day of 2010. While Defendant

watched the door, the other man, who was armed with a handgun, ordered the

store‘s employees and patrons to the floor. While Defendant stood guard, the other

man collected cash from the store‘s owner, along with a purse from one patron and

a cell phone from another. The two robbers left the area in a car and shared the

money taken during the robbery.

Errors Patent

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

this court for errors patent on the face of the record. After reviewing the record,

we find no errors patent.1

Anders Analysis

Pursuant to Anders and State v. Jyles, 96-2669 (La. 12/12/97), 704 So.2d

241, Defendant‘s appellate counsel filed a brief indicating his review of the record

showed no non-frivolous issues existed for appeal. Thus, counsel seeks to

withdraw.

In State v. Benjamin, 573 So.2d 528, 331 (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.

1
The minute entry dated November 30, 2011, reflects that the bill was amended to first
degree robbery and that Defendant pled to the amended charge. The Boykin transcript indicates
the State orally amended the bill to armed robbery, a violation of La.R.S. 14:64 (which is also
indicated on the bill of information), and Defendant pled guilty to the lesser included offense of
first degree robbery, a violation of La.R.S. 14:64.1.
2

It is not necessary for Defendant‘s counsel to ―catalog tediously every

meritless objection made at trial or by way of pre-trial motions with a labored

explanation of why the objections all lack merit.‖ Jyles, 704 So.2d at 241 (citing

Jones v. Barnes, 463 U.S. 745, 103 S.Ct. 3308 (1983)). Nevertheless, counsel‘s

Anders brief must ―‗assure the court that the indigent defendant‘s constitutional

rights have not been violated.‘‖ Id. (quoting McCoy v. Court of Appeals of

Wisconsin, 486 U.S. 429, 108 S.Ct. 1895 (1988)). Counsel must fully discuss and

analyze the trial record and consider ―whether any ruling made by the trial court,

subject to the contemporaneous objection rule, had a significant, adverse impact on

shaping the evidence presented to the jury for its consideration.‖ Jyles, 704 So.2d

at 241 (citing U.S. v. Pippen, 115 F.3d 422 (7th Cir. 1997)). Thus, counsel‘s

Anders brief must review the procedural history and the evidence presented at trial

and provide ―‗a detailed and reviewable assessment for both the defendant and the

appellate court of whether the appeal is worth pursuing in the first place.‘‖ Id. at

242 (quoting State v. Mouton, 95-981 (La. 4/28/95), 653 So.2d 1176).

Appellate counsel‘s brief states he conducted ―a conscientious review of the

record‖ and found no non-frivolous errors to assert on appeal. Counsel stated the

procedural history of Defendant‘s charge, original plea, plea and plea agreement,

and sentencing. He noted that Defendant was properly advised of his Boykin rights

prior to making his guilty plea and that the sentence was within the agreed-upon

cap. Counsel concluded that no non-frivolous issues exist for appeal. Defendant

was afforded an opportunity to file his own brief, but did not do so.

Pursuant to Anders and Benjamin, we have performed our own thorough

review of the record, including pleadings, minute entries, the charging instrument,

and the transcripts and have confirmed the statements by counsel. Defendant was
3

present and represented by counsel at all crucial stages of the proceedings, and he

acknowledged his guilty plea on his plea form after properly being advised of his

rights in accordance with Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 89 S.Ct. 1709 (1969).

Defendant could be sentenced for first degree robbery from three to forty

years without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence. La.R.S.

14:64.1. At sentencing, the trial court reviewed the factors of La.Code Crim.P. art.

894.1 and found that: harm was done to the victims; no substantial grounds existed

to excuse or justify Defendant‘s criminal conduct; Defendant was twenty years old,

single, with two children, in good health, and has a high school education;

Defendant admitted to using marijuana, cocaine, and alcohol but has not received

treatment; and Defendant had one prior misdemeanor conviction for theft and was

placed on probation but the probation was subsequently revoked. The trial court

sentenced Defendant to fifteen years at hard labor without benefit of probation,

parole, or suspension of sentence, the maximum he could receive according to the

agreed-upon sentencing cap.

Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure Article 881.2(A)(2) provides a

―defendant cannot appeal or seek review of a sentence imposed in conformity with

a plea agreement which was set forth in the record at the time of the plea.‖ This

article applies to ―plea agreements involving both specific sentences and

sentencing caps.‖ State v. Young, 96-195, p. 5 (La. 10/15/96), 680 So.2d 1171,

1174. Thus, Defendant may not appeal his sentence.

Defendant has not come forward with assignments of error for our

consideration, and our independent review of the record has revealed no issues that

would support an assignment of error on appeal. Therefore, we will grant appellate

counsel‘s motion to withdraw.
4

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.

5