State of Louisiana v. Dexter L. Brooks

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

16-885

STATE OF LOUISIANA

VERSUS

DEXTER L. BROOKS

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

APPEAL FROM THE
TENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF NATCHITOCHES, NO. C 21559
HONORABLE ERIC ROGER HARRINGTON, DISTRICT JUDGE

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

BILLY H. EZELL
JUDGE

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

Court composed of Marc T. Amy, Billy H. Ezell, and Shannon J. Gremillion,
Judges.

CONVICTION AND SENTENCE
AFFIRMED; MOTION TO
WITHDRAW GRANTED.

Van H. Kyzar, District Attorney
Tenth Judicial District
P. O. Box 838
Natchitoches, LA 71458-0838
(318) 357-2214
COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE:
State of Louisiana

Edward Kelly Bauman
Louisiana Appellate Project
P. O. Box 1641
Lake Charles, LA 70602-1641
(337) 491-0570
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT:
Dexter L. Brooks

Ezell, Judge.

On June 19, 2014, Defendant, Dexter L. Brooks, was charged by bill of

information with four counts of distribution of CDS III (Hydrocodone), in

violation of La.R.S. 40:968; two counts of possession of CDS IV (Alprazolam,

Carisoprodol), in violation of La.R.S. 40:969; and one count of possession of CDS

III (Hydrocodone), in violation of La.R.S. 40:968.

On January 27, 2016, Defendant signed an agreement with the State,

pleading ―guilty‖ to a single count of distribution of CDS III (Hydrocodone). In

exchange, the State agreed to drop the remaining charges, agreed not to file a

habitual offender bill, and agreed to a sentence of ten years at hard labor with

credit for time served.

On July 8, 2016, Defendant filed a ―Notice of Appeal and Designation of

Record,‖ which was signed by the trial court on July 12, 2016. Appellate counsel

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 counsel. This court grants counsel‘s motion to

withdraw.

FACTS

The State submitted that on February 11, 2014, an Agent Roberts with the

Natchitoches Parish Sheriff‘s Office observed a ―hand-to-hand transaction‖ and

stopped the purchaser, who identified Defendant both by name and from a photo

lineup as the individual who sold her ten tablets of Hydrocodone.

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 there

are no errors patent.

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 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, 442 108 S.Ct. 1895, 1903 (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. 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

2

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.

Counsel correctly notes that Defendant was not tried by a jury, but pled

guilty to the charge for which he stands convicted. Defendant was represented by

counsel during his arraignment, subsequent proceedings, and his ultimate plea. His

plea agreement greatly reduced his potential incarceration, as the State dismissed

six additional felony charges and agreed not to pursue a habitual offender

adjudication.

Additionally, counsel correctly notes that, because Defendant and the State

agreed to the exact sentence which Defendant received, Defendant is precluded

from appealing his sentence under La.Code Crim.P. art. 881.2(A)(2).

Accordingly, counsel suggests there are no non-frivolous claims to be raised on

appeal. We agree, as Defendant was represented by counsel when he pled guilty in

exchange for an agreed-upon sentence, waiving his rights to appeal and post-

conviction relief.

Pursuant to Anders and Benjamin, this court has 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. Therefore, 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