State of Louisiana v. Richard Bamburg

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

14-777

STATE OF LOUISIANA

VERSUS

RICHARD BAMBURG

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

APPEAL FROM THE
TWELFTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF AVOYELLES, NO. 172250
HONORABLE WILLIAM BENNETT, DISTRICT JUDGE

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

ELIZABETH A. PICKETT
JUDGE

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

Court composed of Sylvia R. Cooks, Elizabeth A. Pickett, and Shannon J.
Gremillion, Judges.

CONVICTION AND SENTENCE AFFIRMED.
MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED.

CHARLES A. RIDDLE, III
DISTRICT ATTORNEY, TWELFTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
P. O. BOX 1200
MARKSVILLE, LA 71351
COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE:
State of Louisiana

BRENT HAWKINS
LOUISIANA APPELLATE PROJECT
P. O. BOX 3752
LAKE CHARLES, LA 70602
COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT:
Richard Bamburg

PICKETT, Judge.

FACTS

On the night of January 12, 2013, it was discovered that the defendant,

Richard Bamburg, had escaped from the Bunkie Detention Center, where he was

being housed for several Red River Parish convictions. He was apprehended

approximately two weeks later at a residence in Red River Parish.

The defendant was charged by bill of information with simple escape, in

violation of La.R.S. 14:110. On September 10, 2013, the defendant was tried by a

jury and found guilty as charged. On April 22, 2014, the defendant was sentenced

to serve two years in the Louisiana Department of Corrections to run consecutively

to any other sentence.

The defendant filed a motion for appeal, which was granted by the trial court

on May 16, 2014. The defendant’s appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396 (1967), asserting that the record

contains no non-frivolous issues for appeal and requests this court grant his

accompanying motion to withdraw. This court granted the defendant until October

10, 2014, to file a pro se brief. To date, the defendant has not filed a pro se brief.

For the following reasons, we affirm the defendant’s conviction and sentence and

grant appellate counsel’s motion to withdraw.

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.

ANDERS ANALYSIS

Pursuant to Anders, the defendant’s appellate counsel filed a brief stating he

made a conscientious and thorough review of the trial court record and could find

no non-frivolous errors to raise on appeal. Thus, counsel seeks 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.

While it is not necessary for the defendant’s appellate 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[,]” counsel’s

Anders brief must “‘assure the court that the indigent defendant’s constitutional

rights have not been violated.’ McCoy [v. Court of Appeals of Wisconsin], 486

U.S. [429] at 442, 108 S.Ct. [1895] at 1903 [(1988)].” State v. Jyles, 96-2669, p. 2

(La. 12/12/97), 704 So.2d 241, 241. 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
2

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

Mouton, 95-981, p. 2 (La. 4/28/95), 653 So.2d 1176, 1177.

In his Anders brief, appellate counsel details the facts that established the

defendant’s guilt at trial.

Pursuant to Anders, 386 U.S. 738, and Benjamin, 573 So.2d 528, this court

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

entries, the charging instrument, and the transcripts and have confirmed the

statements made by appellate counsel. The defendant was properly charged in the

bill of information, he was present and represented by counsel at all crucial stages

of the proceedings, the verdict was correct, and he received a legal sentence.

Our review of the record reveals no issues that would support an assignment

of error on appeal. Therefore, we affirm the defendant’s conviction and sentence

and grant appellate counsel’s motion to withdraw.

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