State of Louisiana v. Maurice Joseph Goodman

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

15-131

STATE OF LOUISIANA

VERSUS

MAURICE JOSEPH GOODMAN

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

APPEAL FROM THE
FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF LAFAYETTE, NO. CR 136037, DIVISION F
HONORABLE GLENNON P. EVERETT, DISTRICT JUDGE

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

JAMES T. GENOVESE
JUDGE

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

Court composed of Sylvia R. Cooks, Marc T. Amy, and James T. Genovese,
Judges.

CONVICTIONS AND SENTENCES
AFFIRMED, AS AMENDED;
REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.
MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED.

Keith Stutes
District Attorney
Fifteenth Judicial District
Post Office Box 3306
Lafayette, Louisiana 70502
(337) 232-5170
COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE:
State of Louisiana

Edward K. Bauman
Louisiana Appellate Project
Post Office Box 1641
Lake Charles, Louisiana 70602
(337) 491-0570
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT:
Maurice Joseph Goodman

GENOVESE, Judge.

Defendant, Maurice Joseph Goodman, was charged by bill of indictment

with one count of second degree murder, in violation of La.R.S. 14:30.1; and one

count of attempted second degree murder, in violation of La.R.S. 14:30.1 and

14:27. Defendant entered pleas of not guilty on both counts.

Defendant proceeded to trial by jury, wherein the trial court declared a

mistrial. Pursuant to Defendant’s request and waiver of his right to a trial by jury,

the trial court then scheduled the case for a bench trial.

On the day of the scheduled bench trial, Defendant pled guilty to the reduced

charges of one count of manslaughter, in violation of La.R.S. 14:31, and one count

of attempted manslaughter, in violation of La.R.S. 14:31 and 14:27. Defendant

and the State agreed that there would be a sentencing cap of ten years on the

attempted manslaughter charge, that the sentences would be run concurrently, and

that the State would not pursue a habitual offender sentencing enhancement. The

trial court accepted the agreement and ordered a presentence investigation.

Defendant was then sentenced to serve twenty-five years at hard labor,

without benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence, with respect to the

manslaughter charge, and sentenced to ten years at hard labor with respect to the

attempted manslaughter charge. Those sentences were ordered to run

concurrently.

Defendant filed a motion to reconsider sentence, alleging that the twenty-

five year manslaughter sentence was excessive. That motion was denied on

November 25, 2014, and Defendant has appealed.

Appellate counsel has filed a brief 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 has filed a motion seeking to withdraw as Defendant’s

counsel. We affirm Defendant’s convictions; we affirm, as amended herein,

Defendant’s manslaughter sentence to delete the denial of parole eligibility; we

remand with instructions; we affirm Defendant’s attempted manslaughter sentence;

and, we grant Defendant’s appellate counsel’s motion to withdraw as counsel of

record.

FACTS

The facts in this case, as set forth by the State at Defendant’s guilty plea

proceeding, are that on November 3, 2001, in Lafayette Parish, Maurice Goodman

took out a firearm and fired it at Joshua Augustine. As a result thereby, the shot

Defendant fired struck and killed Mr. Augustine and wounded Mr. James Bonnet.

ANDERS ANALYSIS

In State v. Benjamin, 573 So.2d 528, 531 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1990), the fourth

circuit explained the analysis based on Anders, 386 U.S. 738:

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.

While it is not necessary for Defendant’s appellate counsel to “catalog

tediously every meritless objection made at trial or by way of pre-trial motions

2

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.’” State v. Jyles, 96-2669, p. 2 (La. 12/12/97), 704

So.2d 241, 241 (citing Jones v. Barnes, 463 U.S. 745, 103 S.Ct. 3308 (1983);

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.” Id. (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.’” State v. Mouton, 95-981, p. 2 (La. 4/28/95), 653 So.2d 1176,

1177.

Defendant’s appellate counsel has appropriately and correctly noted that

there is an error in Defendant’s sentence for his conviction of manslaughter and is

further correct that this court has the legal authority to correct that error. The trial

court sentenced Defendant to serve twenty-five years at hard labor, without the

benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence. This court has previously

found that on a conviction for manslaughter, the denial of the benefit of parole is

error.

For his conviction of manslaughter, the Defendant was
sentenced to serve thirty-five years at hard labor without the benefit of
parole, probation, or suspension of sentence. Louisiana Revised
Statutes 14:31 provides that a person convicted of manslaughter “shall
be imprisoned at hard labor for not more than forty years,” and it does
not set forth any prohibition against parole, probation or suspension of
sentence. However, La.Code Crim.P. art. 893 prohibits the court from

3

suspending the sentence and placing persons who are on probation
convicted of certain crimes of violence, including manslaughter, but it
does not prohibit parole. See La. R.S. 14:2(B)(4). Thus, the trial
court erred in ordering the Defendant’s sentence to be served without
the benefit of parole. Accordingly, this court will amend the
Defendant’s sentence to delete the denial of parole eligibility and
instruct the district court to make an entry in the minutes reflecting
this change. State v. Levy, 08-1467 (La.App. 3 Cir. 6/10/09), 12 So.3d
1135, and State v. Dupree, 07-98 (La.App. 3 Cir. 5/30/07), 957 So.2d
966.

State v. Batiste, 09-521, pp. 1-2 (La.App. 3 Cir. 12/9/09), 25 So.3d 981, 982

(footnote omitted).

Given this court’s ruling in Batiste, we amend Defendant’s manslaughter

sentence to delete the denial of parole eligibility, and we remand to instruct the

trial court to make an entry in the minutes reflecting said change.

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

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

transcripts. Our review has revealed no issues that would support an assignment of

error on appeal.

DISPOSITION

We affirm Defendant’s convictions in their entirety; we affirm Defendant’s

manslaughter sentence, but amend same to delete the denial of parole eligibility

and remand with instructions to the trial court to make an entry in the minutes

reflecting said change; we affirm Defendant’s attempted manslaughter sentence;

and, we grant Defendant’s appellate counsel’s motion to withdraw as counsel of

record.

CONVICTIONS AND SENTENCES AFFIRMED,
AS AMENDED; REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.
MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED.
This opinion is NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. Uniform
Rules―Courts of Appeal, Rule 2─16.3.

4