State of Louisiana v. Andrew Schlesinger AKA - Andrew Devon Schlesinger

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

15-702

STATE OF LOUISIANA

VERSUS

ANDREW SCHLESINGER

AKA - ANDREW DEVON SCHLESINGER

**********

APPEAL FROM THE
FOURTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF CALCASIEU, NO. 25467-13
HONORABLE ROBERT LANE WYATT, DISTRICT JUDGE

**********

JOHN E. CONERY
JUDGE

**********

Court composed of Elizabeth A. Pickett, Billy Howard Ezell, and John E. Conery,
Judges.

CONVICTION AND SENTENCE AFFIRMED, REMANDED WITH
INSTRUCTIONS, MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED.

John F. DeRosier
District Attorney
Karen C. McLellan
Assisstant District Attorney
14th Judicial District Court
Post Office Box 3206
Lake Charles, Louisiana 70602-3206
(337) 437-3400
COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE:
State of Louisiana

Edward J. Marquet
Louisiana Appellee Project
Post Office Box 53733
Lafayette, Louisiana 70505-3733
(337) 237-6841
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT:
Andrew Schlesinger

Andrew D. Schlesinger
1605 Badger Street
Lake Charles, Louisiana 70607
DEFENDANT:
Andrew Schlesinger

CONERY, Judge.

On October 30, 2013, Defendant Andrew Schlesinger was charged with

possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, a violation of La.R.S. 40:967(A)(1).

On March 4, 2015, the bill of information was amended to reduce the charge to

possession of cocaine, a violation of La.R.S. 40:967(C).

On August 7, 2014, Defendant filed a motion to suppress the cocaine seized

from his person at the time of his initial detention and arrest. A hearing to address

Defendant’s motion was held on March 4, 2015, following which, the trial court

denied the motion in open court.

On March 4, 2015, Defendant pled guilty to possession of cocaine but

reserved his right to appeal the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress the

evidence pursuant to State v. Crosby, 338 So.2d 584 (La.1976). After waiving all

delays, imposition of sentence was deferred, and defendant was placed on

supervised probation for one year subject to the conditions set forth in La.Code

Crim.P. arts. 893 and 895, and additional conditions.

Defendant perfected a timely appeal, alleging only that the trial court erred

when it denied his motion to suppress the evidence. Appellate counsel, however,

has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396

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

seeking to withdraw as Defendant’s appellate counsel. We grant appellate

counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm Defendant’s conviction and sentence.

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. Additionally, the court minutes require correction.

As conditions of probation, Defendant was ordered to pay a $500 fine and

court costs, $50 to the Louisiana Commission on Law Enforcement Drug

Education, $250 to the Southwest Louisiana Criminalistics Lab Fund and $500 to

the Public Defenders’ Office. If the Defendant earned his GED within three

months, the court stated he did not have to pay the fine and court costs. A payment

plan was not established for the fees imposed as conditions of probation and is

required. See State v. Arisme, 13-269, pp. 3-4 (La.App. 3 Cir. 10/9/13), 123 So.3d

1259, 1262.

Likewise, in the present case, we remand this case to the trial court for the

establishment of a payment plan for the fees and costs imposed as conditions of

probation, noting that the plan may either be determined by the trial court or by the

Department of Probation and Parole with approval by the trial court.

Further, we find the court minutes of sentencing require correction. At

sentencing, as a condition of probation, the judge imposed “[d]rug/alcohol

assessment. Follow any recommendations to include random drug screens and

AA/NA if recommended.” The court minutes indicate that the Defendant is to

“attend at least (1) Narcotics Anonymous or Alcoholics Anonymous meeting per

week.”1

“[W]hen the minutes and the transcript conflict, the transcript prevails.”

State v. Wommack, 00-137, p. 4 (La.App. 3 Cir. 6/7/00), 770 So.2d 365, 369, writ

denied, 00-2051 (La. 9/21/01), 797 So.2d 62. Thus, we order the trial court to

1
We note that in stating the sentencing recommendation to the judge, the prosecutor said
that as a condition of probation, the Defendant should “attend AA or NA at least once a week.”
Although this is more in line with what appears in the court minutes, this is not what the trial
court imposed.

2

amend the minute entry of sentencing to correctly reflect the condition of probation

imposed.

ANALYSIS - Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396 (1967).

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

circuit explained the analysis based on Anders:

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 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.’” 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.”

Jyles, 704 So.2d at 241 (citing United States v. Pippers, 115 F.3d 422 (7th Cir.

3

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.

A review of the record shows that Defendant was properly charged by a bill

of information and that the bill of information was properly amended on March 4,

2015. Defendant was represented by counsel throughout all critical proceedings.

Defendant was Boykinized prior to the trial court’s acceptance of his guilty plea.

The trial court noted that Defendant had signed a Waiver of Constitutional Rights

and Plea of Guilty Form, which stated the amended charge and the possible

maximum penalty. The trial court questioned Defendant as to whether he had gone

over the waiver form with defense counsel, to which Defendant affirmed that he

had. After the trial court ascertained Defendant’s level of education, the trial court

advised him of the rights he was giving up by pleading guilty: the right to a trial, to

be represented at trial, to confront witnesses, the right against self-incrimination,

the right to be presumed innocent, and the right to appeal. The trial court further

determined that no one threatened, pressured, forced, coerced, promised, or

induced Defendant in any way to enter the guilty plea. After the trial court asked

Defendant if he understood and Defendant stated that he did, Defendant pled guilty

to possession of cocaine. The trial court accepted the guilty plea as intelligently

and knowingly made.

In brief, appellate counsel noted that on the record, he could find no errors

on appeal which would have supported a reversal of the guilty plea or the denial of

the motion to suppress evidence. In Defendant’s motion to suppress he had

4

asserted that the second pat down, which located the evidence in Defendant’s

pocket, was unnecessary and unreasonable since he had not been arrested and the

second pat down was not a search incident to arrest. Referencing State v. Tucker,

626 So.2d 707, 712 (La.1993) and State v. Lewis, 00-3136 (La. 4/26/02), 815 So.2d

818, cert denied, 537 U.S. 922, 123 S.Ct. 312 (2002), appellate counsel concluded

that while Defendant in this case had not been arrested when he was patted down

for the second time, he had been handcuffed for officer safety, thus detained. If a

person is contacted by the police or has submitted to the police’s show of authority,

there is undoubtedly a seizure for Fourth Amendment purposes. See Tucker, 626

So.2d 707.

We agree with appellate counsel. At the suppression hearing, the two

officers involved testified. Defendant was stopped for a traffic violation. Upon

approaching Defendant’s vehicle, one of the officers smelled a strong odor of burnt

marijuana. After asking Defendant to exit his vehicle, both officers testified that

Defendant kept attempting to walk away. Defendant was handcuffed for the

officers’ safety. One officer began to pat Defendant down to ascertain whether he

had a weapon and felt something in Defendant’s pocket which the officer believed

contained an illegal substance. Defendant refused consent to search his pocket.

When the officer left to call for a K-9 unit, the second officer noticed Defendant

kept attempting to reach the suspect pocket. The second officer decided to

continue the pat down process. This time, when asked, Defendant gave his consent

for the officer to search his pocket. Several small packets of a substance later

identified to be cocaine were located in his pocket. We find that the totality of the

circumstances known to the officers at the time gave rise to reasonable suspicion

for an investigatory detention. See State v. Thomas, 08-521 (La.App. 5 Cir.

5

1/27/09), 8 So.3d 646, writ denied, 09-391 (La. 12/18/09), 23 So.3d 928.

Furthermore, Defendant consented to the search.

We find no issues that would support an assignment of error on appeal.

Therefore, we grant appellate counsel’s motion to withdraw.

DISPOSITION

We affirm Defendant’s conviction and sentence, remand with instructions

and grant Appellate counsel’s motion to withdraw.

CONVICTION AND SENTENCE AFFIRMED, REMANDED WITH
INSTRUCTIONS, MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED.

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

6

15-702

COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

STATE OF LOUISIANA

STATE OF LOUISIANA

Plaintiff-Appellee

VERSUS

ANDREW SCHLESINGER

Defendant-Appellant

On Appeal from the Fourteenth Judicial District Court, Docket Number 25467-13,
Parish of Calcasieu, State of Louisiana, Honorable Robert L. Wyatt

ORDER

After consideration of appellate counsel’s request to withdraw as counsel
and the appeal presently pending in the above-captioned matter;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that appellate counsel’s motion to withdraw is
granted.

THUS DONE AND SIGNED this _____ day of _________________, 2015.

COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

_________________________________
Judge Elizabeth A. Pickett

_________________________________
Judge Billy H. Ezell

_________________________________
Judge John E. Conery

7