State of Louisiana v. Cassandra Ward

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

17-788

STATE OF LOUISIANA

VERSUS

CASSANDRA WARD

**********

APPEAL FROM THE
THIRTIETH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF VERNON, NO. 86778
HONORABLE VERNON B. CLARK, DISTRICT JUDGE

**********

D. KENT SAVOIE
JUDGE

**********

Court composed of John D. Saunders, Marc T. Amy, and D. Kent Savoie, Judges.

CONVICTION AND SENTENCE AFFIRMED AS AMENDED.
MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED.

Annette F. Roach
Louisiana Appellate Project
Post Office Box 1747
Lake Charles, Louisiana 70602-1747
(337) 436-2900
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT:
Cassandra Ward

Hon. Asa Allen Skinner
District Attorney
Thirtieth Judicial District Court
Post Office Box 1188
Leesville, Louisiana 71496-1188
(337) 239-2008
COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE:
State of Louisiana

SAVOIE, Judge.

Defendant, Cassandra Ward, was indicted for obstruction of justice for

tampering with evidence, a violation of La.R.S. 14:130.1(A)(1)(a), on September

4, 2014. She was originally arrested for second degree murder, a violation of

La.R.S. 14:30.1, however, the grand jury indicted her on the lesser charge. Her co-

defendant, Jose Israel Ayala, III, was indicted for second degree murder and

obstruction of justice. Another co-defendant, Matthew David Andrews, was also

indicted for obstruction of justice.

Defendant originally entered a plea of not guilty but changed her plea to

guilty as charged on September 2, 2016. Defendant had previously filed an

amended a motion to suppress; that motion was dismissed at Defendant’s request

during the plea hearing. The trial court sentenced Defendant to thirty years at hard

labor, with credit for time served, and ordered to pay $150 for preparation of her

presentence investigation (PSI) report. Defendant filed a motion to reconsider her

sentence, and the trial court denied it on July 5, 2017, indicating it had already

considered the factors listed in Defendant’s motion.

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. We grant

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

discussed below.

FACTS

The State submitted this factual basis for Defendant’s guilty plea at the plea

hearing:

[D]uring a period of March 29th, 2014[,] the defendant, Cassandra
Ward, did obstruct justice in that she did tamper with evidence which
was reasonably relevant to a criminal investigation or proceeding with

knowledge that such acts or act, uh, would reasonably make or would
have an effect on an actual or potential present, past, or future
criminal investigation with the specific intent to distort the results of
that criminal proceeding in that she did remove and, uh, move and did
remove evidence of the second degree murder of James Stephens. In
particular, the State would contend that the defendant was present at
2490 Bailey Road when the victim arrived at that location – Mr.
James Stephens – and was killed by an individual and co[-]defendant
named “Jose Ayala.” This was the second degree murder of Mr.
Stephens. After the defendant, Cassandra Ward, did, with the specific
intent to distort results of the subsequent criminal investigation did
tamper with evidence by aiding in the removal of the body of Mr.
James Stephens from 2490 Bailey Road in Vernon Parish to a location
off Highway 1211 in Vernon Parish, Louisiana. Thereafter she did
return to 2490 Bailey Road, the murder scene, uh, located here in
Vernon Parish and did proceed to clean evidence of the murder by
using bleach, uh, to clean the porch of the home, by using bleach to –
to clean – to clean blood from the premises, uh, ultimately, uh, having
bleach make contact with her shoes and subsequently the State
recovered those said shoes from Mrs. Ward. Also, the State would
contend that she did, uh, take the weapons and the digging im –
implements from that location and did dispose of them at a location
over in Texas, which were ultimately recovered. Uh, the State would
also contend that, at some point thereafter of March the 29 th, 2014,
that she did return to the body of Mr. Stephens located out at 1211 and
did, at some point, along with the co[-]defendant did tamper with the
body. Uh, subsequent to her arrest, she did give statements, uh,
supporting the facts that I’ve, uh, recited here in this court, uh, on
several occasions.

Defense counsel did not dispute the recitation of the facts. When the trial judge

asked Defendant directly if those facts were correct, she responded, “Yes, sir.”

ERRORS PATENT

In accordance with La.Code Crim.P. art. 920, we review all appeals for

errors patent on the face of the record. After reviewing the record, we find no

errors patent.

ANDERS ANALYSIS

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

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.

Benjamin, 573 So.2d at 531. The Louisiana Supreme Court approved the fourth

circuit’s analysis in State v. Mouton, 95-981 (La. 4/28/95), 653 So.2d 1176.

Pursuant to Anders, 386 U.S. 738, and State v. Jyles, 96-2669 (La.

12/12/97), 704 So.2d 241, Defendant’s appellate counsel filed a brief in which she

considered Defendant’s ability to appeal her sentence. Counsel noted Defendant

pled guilty and was sentenced within the sentencing cap to which she agreed.

Thus, her sentence is not subject to review on appeal. The trial court discussed the

terms of the plea agreement, including a sentencing cap of thirty years, the State’s

agreement not to pursue other charges against Defendant arising out of this

incident, and Defendant’s agreement to testify truthfully against her co-defendants.

Defendant indicated she understood and agreed to the sentencing cap. The trial

court sentenced Defendant according to that agreement.

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

court has held, based on this article, “[i]n an instance where the court sentences the

defendant in accordance with the parties’ recommendation for a specific sentence

or a sentencing range, it is clear that review of the imposed sentence is precluded.”

3

State v. Jordan, 98-101, p. 4 (La.App. 3 Cir. 6/3/98), 716 So.2d 36, 38. Thus, a

defendant may not seek review of a sentence that falls under the sentencing cap to

which he agreed. State v. Young, 96-195 (La. 10/15/96), 680 So.2d 1171.

Here, Defendant agreed to the sentencing cap the trial court imposed and

cannot contest her sentence on appeal. Defense counsel correctly concluded

Defendant cannot make a non-frivolous argument on appeal alleging an excessive

sentence.

Defense counsel’s brief also discussed the trial court’s imposition of a $150

fee for Defendant’s PSI report. The fee is to be paid upon Defendant’s release

from prison.

Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure Article 875(A)(4) provides:

(a) If the court orders a presentence investigation to be
conducted, the court shall simultaneously order the defendant to pay
to the department an amount not to exceed one hundred fifty dollars to
defray the cost of conducting the presentence investigation and
preparing presentence investigation reports. The order to pay shall be
included in the judgment.

(b) The amount to be paid by the defendant pursuant to this
Subparagraph shall be determined by the Department of Public Safety
and Corrections and shall be based on the defendant's ability to pay. In
making this determination, the department may consider such factors
as the defendant's income, property owned by the defendant,
outstanding obligations of the defendant, and the number and ages of
any dependents of the defendant.

Based on the language of this article, the trial court erred in ordering this fee

as part of Defendant’s sentence. Although we have not located jurisprudence on

this issue, we find the correct interpretation of the article is that the trial court

should order a defendant to pay $150 as part of the judgment ordering the PSI.

The Department of Public Safety and Corrections should then determine the

amount of the fee, not to exceed $150.

4

Although the trial court erred in ordering the fee as part of Defendant’s

sentence, this error does not warrant the denial of counsel’s motion to withdraw.

Counsel has fully addressed the issue in her Anders brief, and further discussion is

unnecessary. The State has not contested defense counsel’s argument. Further, the

issue is more in the nature of an administrative matter; it does not concern

Defendant’s conviction, sentence, or any constitutional rights. Thus, we vacate the

portion of Defendant’s sentence ordering her to pay a fee of $150 at the time she is

released from prison.

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

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

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

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

acknowledged her guilty plea on the plea form. The trial court correctly informed

Defendant of her Boykin rights and discussed her possible sentences for obstruction

of justice.

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

of error on appeal beyond the potential issues addressed by counsel.

DECREE

Based on the foregoing, defense counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted.

We amend Defendant’s sentence to delete the order to pay $150 upon her release

from prison. Defendant’s conviction and sentence are affirmed in all other

respects.

CONVICTION AND SENTENCE AFFIRMED AS AMENDED.

MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED.

5