State of Louisiana v. Dirk Douglas Thomas AKA Dirk Thomas

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

17-959

STATE OF LOUISIANA

VERSUS

DIRK DOUGLAS THOMAS AKA DIRK THOMAS

**********

APPEAL FROM THE
SIXTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF IBERIA, NO. 12-1039
HONORABLE ANTHONY THIBODEAUX, DISTRICT JUDGE

**********

ULYSSES GENE THIBODEAUX
CHIEF JUDGE

**********

Court composed of Ulysses Gene Thibodeaux, Chief Judge, Phyllis M. Keaty, and
Candyce G. Perret, Judges.

AFFIRMED. MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED.

M. Bofill Duhe
District Attorney – 16th Judicial District
300 Iberia Street - #200
New Iberia, LA 70560
Telephone: (337) 369-4420
COUNSEL FOR:
Plaintiff/Appellee - State of Louisiana

Chad M. Ikerd
Louisiana Appellate Project
P. O. Box 2125
Lafayette, LA 70502
Telephone: (225) 806-2930
COUNSEL FOR:
Defendant/Appellant - Dirk Douglas Thomas aka Dirk Thomas

Dirk Thomas
Pro Se
1506 Lakeside Drive
New Iberia, LA 70560
Telephone: (337) 766-2760
Defendant/Appellant

THIBODEAUX, Chief Judge.

Defendant Dirk Douglas Thomas was charged with one count of sexual

battery, and a jury unanimously found him guilty of the lesser included offense,

attempted sexual battery, in violation of La.R.S. 14:27 and La.R.S. 14:43.1. He was

sentenced to eighteen months imprisonment at hard labor, to be served without the

benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence. On appeal, Thomas asserts

that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction and challenges his

sentence as unconstitutionally excessive.

After concluding no non-frivolous issues exist upon which to base an

appeal, appellate counsel has filed a brief requesting only a review for errors patent,

and he now moves to withdraw from the appeal.

For the following reasons, this court grants counsel’s Motion to

Withdraw and affirms Thomas’s conviction and sentence.

I.

ISSUES

We must decide:

(1) whether the record reveals on its face errors patent
sufficient to reverse Thomas’s conviction and
sentence;

(2) whether the evidence introduced at trial, when
viewed under the Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307,
99 S.Ct. 2781 (1979) standard, was insufficient to
support Thomas’s conviction of attempted sexual
battery in violation of La.R.S. 14:27 and La.R.S.
14:43.1;

(3) whether the sentence imposed by the trial court is
excessive, in violation of the Eighth Amendment of
the Constitution of the United States and La.Const.
art. 1, § 20; and

(4) whether appellate counsel has thoroughly reviewed
the record and correctly determined that no non-
frivolous issues exist such that he may be permitted
to withdraw from the appeal.

II.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On April 5, 2012, Defendant Dirk Thomas’s adult biological daughter,

D.T.,1 contacted law enforcement alleging that Thomas had sexually assaulted her

on the night of April 3, 2012. The State filed a bill of information charging Thomas

with one count of sexual battery. Thomas waived formal arraignment on all charges

and pled not guilty. After a trial on the merits, the jury unanimously found Thomas

guilty of attempted sexual battery. The trial court sentenced Thomas to eighteen

months imprisonment at hard labor without the benefit of probation, parole, or

suspension of sentence.

At the time of trial, D.T. was twenty-eight years old. She was the first

witness called to testify. On direct examination, D.T. testified that she and her father

had an estranged relationship, visiting each other sporadically over the years, with

both parties living in different parts of the country at different times. As she grew

older, she sought to build a relationship with her father, and the two became close

after she became pregnant with her son.

Thomas owned and operated several properties in New Iberia,

Louisiana. Because D.T. was unable to afford living on her own, Thomas offered to

let her and her son live in his townhouse in New Iberia, and she agreed and stayed

1
In accordance with La.R.S. 46:1844(W), initials are used to preserve the confidentiality
of crime victims who are minors, victims of sex offenses, and victims of human trafficking-related
offenses.

2

there until she joined the Army in 2008. In 2010, D.T. left the Army and returned

to Louisiana. D.T. stated Thomas again offered to let her live in the New Iberia

townhome and that Thomas additionally offered to let D.T. work for him in

managing his properties, which she accepted. D.T. moved into townhome A with

her son, who was four or five at the time, while Thomas lived in townhome B. She

further stated that due to ongoing renovations, Thomas and whoever else was

working would enter the townhome at any given time.

D.T. testified that her relationship with her father was growing into both

a friendship and a father-daughter relationship. They began talking and texting often,

and D.T. found that she and Thomas had a lot in common. D.T. identified State’s

Exhibit Number 1 as a printout of the text messages between herself and Thomas.

Thomas is listed in her contacts as “Dad Thomas.” As discussed below, the trial

court ruled the printout of the text messages to be inadmissible, but it allowed the

introduction of State’s Exhibit Number 2, a download of the information from D.T.’s

cellular phone containing the same information.

On the night of April 3, 2012, D.T. testified that she and Thomas went

upstairs to watch a movie in her bedroom while her son was asleep in the next room.

Thomas commented on her body, and then licked her buttocks, which D.T. laughed

off at the time, and Thomas left the room afterwards. Thomas returned and then

attempted to remove D.T.’s underwear. After repeatedly telling Thomas to stop,

D.T. realized that Thomas was not joking and she fought to keep her underwear on.

Thomas then pinned her down with his upper body while using his hand to remove

her underwear, and proceeded to lick her genitalia several times. Thomas left around

1:00 a.m. when the movie was over, and D.T. tried to call her boyfriend. When her

3

boyfriend did not answer, she testified that she just lay there and cried in disbelief at

what her father had done to her.

The next morning, D.T. called her mother to help her find a new place

to live. When her mother asked why, D.T. initially told her that she noticed things

around the townhouse that made her uncomfortable, like that her underwear had

been rummaged through and only Thomas could have done so. While looking for

apartments, D.T. eventually told her mother the details of the night before. As a

result of the conversation with her mother, D.T. called the police station to ask if she

could record conversations as evidence. After someone at the police station told her

that she could, she began recording her conversations with Thomas. When D.T.

believed she had obtained substantial recordings, she then sought out law

enforcement.

D.T. provided law enforcement with four separate recorded

conversations, all of which the listener was able to identify Thomas as the person on

the other end of the conversation. On direct examination, D.T. identified State’s

Exhibit Number 3 as copies of the recordings she had made. D.T. recognized the

exhibit from her meeting with the prosecutor when D.T. verified both that she was

on the recordings and that she had made the recordings, after which she signed and

dated the exhibit. D.T. listened to the recordings and confirmed they were accurate.

D.T. identified the speakers in the conversations as herself and Thomas. She further

claimed that she made the recordings to support her claims because there was no

physical evidence of the incident.

On cross examination, D.T. was unsure of whether the incident

occurred on April 2 or April 3, because four years had since passed. However, D.T.

was able to confirm that a day or two before the incident, Thomas told her over lunch

4

that D.T. would not be in his will as he preferred to leave his estate to his Caucasian

stepchildren instead. She insisted that she was not angry, nor was there an argument

over the will, but rather a general conversation. On redirect examination, D.T.

elaborated that she was not upset because she did not expect to be in his will as the

two had never had much of a relationship.

D.T. confirmed Thomas was able to completely remove her underwear

during the incident. She stated that she gave up both physically and emotionally,

and eventually stopped struggling because she did not want to hurt him and just

wanted him to stop. She did not recall telling the officer she stopped fighting. D.T.

stopped fighting because it was ineffective anyway; it was not stopping him.

D.T. testified that she continued living at the townhouse for about a

week and a half after the incident until the time Thomas was served with the

restraining order, which occurred a few days prior to his arrest. D.T. also continued

to work for and communicate with Thomas in an attempt to gather evidence to prove

her claim, as there was no other evidence. Having to communicate with Thomas

bothered D.T. because Thomas acted as if everything was okay, and so she felt like

she too had to act as if everything was okay when speaking to him.

Defense counsel asked D.T. to explain some of her text message

conversations with Thomas as represented in State’s Exhibit Number 2, after

suggesting that Thomas lived with D.T. and that they had a consensual sexual

relationship. When defense counsel further suggested that D.T.’s conversations with

Thomas were inappropriate, D.T. responded that she spoke to him in the same way

that she spoke to her mother and sister. Defense counsel then inquired into the

conversations she had with other family members concerning her various

relationships, to which D.T. firmly responded she was only in one relationship at the

5

time, and further that she was excited to introduce her boyfriend to her father as she

had never introduced anyone to her father before. D.T. clarified she told her father

about the various men who had “hit on” her, but she was only in a relationship with

the one person.

When the State asked D.T. about the text messages, D.T. recalled

Thomas texting her a message that read, “I have seen you walk away. I can’t handle

you on my best day. You in stilettos, I’d just be a minute, man. LMAO.” Another

message from Thomas read, “Your father is a well-endowed man that hits really hard

and lasts a very long time. In other words, I’m a cunt’s worst nightmare.” At the

time, D.T. believed Thomas was joking with her in a sexual manner. At the time of

trial, however, D.T. had come to realize the messages indicated Thomas did not see

her as a daughter, but rather as a woman in a sexual fashion.

Lisa Burgess, D.T.’s mother, testified that she and Thomas were never

married, but that they dated and lived together for about three years. She also stated

that Thomas had physical contact with D.T. maybe three times throughout D.T.’s

adolescence, but that he financially supported D.T. from the ages of five to eighteen.

Ms. Burgess recalled that on the morning of April 4, D.T. came to her

house to talk, and she asked D.T. if anything was wrong because something seemed

a little different. Initially, D.T. responded that nothing was wrong, but eventually

told her mother that something bad had happened. Ms. Burgess again asked D.T.

what was wrong when D.T. began shaking, crying, and hyperventilating. Ms.

Burgess recalled the details of the incident as relayed to her by D.T., stating that

Thomas had forced D.T.’s legs open and performed oral sex on her.

Ms. Burgess testified that she then advised D.T. to call the police, but

that D.T. was afraid initially. Ms. Burgess then suggested that D.T. stay at the

6

townhouse for a few days to collect evidence, as Thomas would become aware that

D.T. told her mother of the incident if she were to move in with Ms. Burgess, and

“cut all ties” thereafter. Shortly after the incident, Ms. Burgess recalled that she

noticed great changes in D.T., and that D.T. was not like herself. After a couple of

months, however, D.T. would no longer speak of the incident with Ms. Burgess.

Ms. Ashley Hammons testified at trial that she was employed by the

Iberia Parish Sheriff’s Office as a sergeant in detectives. She was able to record

D.T.’s recordings using her work phone and transferred the files onto a compact disc.

The court played the compact disc for the jury. The State then rested subject to

rebuttal. State’s Exhibit Number 3 contains four recordings labeled: 33271; 47209;

47210; and 47831.

In 47209, D.T. explained that she was not good face-to-face and that

she liked their relationship. D.T. asked “Daddy” to listen and asked him the reason

why he, “you know.” “Daddy” promised they would talk but not like “this.” D.T.

said she would like to go with him and continue to work for him. “Daddy” said there

were several reasons for “what transpired,” and one reason was that “you always say

people make you do things you don’t want to do.”

In 47210, “Daddy” talked about being a very strong-willed person. D.T.

asked if it was because she did things she did not want to do. D.T. then asked if her

“Daddy” wanted to have oral sex with her because he did not think she was his

daughter. “Daddy” asked what she was talking about and said he was lost. When

D.T. repeated the sentiment that she thought the reason he did it was because he did

not think she was his daughter, “Daddy” said they would talk about it later. D.T.

explained that she liked their relationship and that she did not want him to look at

7

her as if she was not his daughter. “Daddy” said for D.T. to take her son on his field

trip and that they would talk when he got back.

In 47831, a male voice answered D.T.’s call and stated, “Dirk speaking.”

D.T. expressed that the two had “never really talked about anything,” to which “Dirk”

responded that they would talk about it when D.T. settled down. The following

exchange occurred:

Female voice: “No, okay, see, I can never settle down
because it’s always on my mind. I feel like you
never even apologized for it. Like . . .”

Male voice: “Listen, listen, I don’t like talking over
the phone. What happened, it happened in person.
We gonna talk about it in person.”

Female voice: “All right.”

Male voice: “Okay? Girl, don’t, don’t think about
it. It was a test. I had to test you. I had to test you.”

Female voice: “You had to test me by going to the
extremities of taking off my underwear and doing
all of that? Daddy, are you serious?”

Male voice: “I’m serious. You have to go to the
extreme with you because (inaudible) you don’t
know you like I know you. I found out, I found out
more about you, now, than I ever did.”

Female voice: “Okay, but even, even if so, like, why
would I let my Daddy do that to me. Like, okay,
why wouldn’t I be, like, okay, really?”

Male voice: Hold up, hold up, hold up. I’m not
going to discuss it over the phone.

Female voice: “All right, all right. Bye, Daddy.”

The first witness called by the defense was Robert Hamilton, D.T.’s

cousin and Thomas’s nephew. Mr. Hamilton was present at the lunch meeting at

which Thomas informed D.T. that she would not be in his will. Mr. Hamilton

8

testified that the conversation was more like an argument, and that D.T. was loud,

mad, and appeared upset about the situation. On cross-examination, Mr. Hamilton

testified that he had previously worked for Thomas for two and a half years. Mr.

Hamilton also testified that he had never seen any sexual assault occurring between

D.T. and Thomas.

The second witness called by the defense was Felicia Thomas,

Thomas’s sister. She testified that prior to the incident, Thomas was living in Ann

Arbor, Michigan. Ms. Thomas then stated that Thomas occupied the same

townhouse as D.T. and her son, and that the other townhouse only contained tools

and equipment for work. Ms. Thomas also testified that she had a good relationship

with D.T. prior to the incident.

Thomas then testified on his own behalf, and maintained that D.T.’s

story was a complete fabrication. He testified that on the evening of the incident, he

watched D.T.’s son while she went out with her boyfriend. D.T. brought home some

movies and brought them upstairs. When Thomas went upstairs to get the movies,

D.T. was already watching one and said she wanted to watch the movies upstairs.

Thomas initially sat on the bed to watch the movie but was uncomfortable because

D.T. was wearing undergarments and a short robe while she laid on the bed. Thomas

went downstairs, and D.T. followed to ask him what was wrong. Thomas replied

there was nothing wrong and followed D.T. back upstairs, where he sat on the floor

to finish watching the movie.

Thomas testified that in the days following the alleged incident, his

relationship with D.T. was fine, and they discussed business as usual. Thomas gave

D.T. a new cell phone, but she refused to use it because she had just gotten a new

9

phone. Problems continued to arise when he required D.T. to have her phone

adapted to his business and D.T. failed to comply.

In explaining the phone conversations, Thomas believed that D.T.’s

mother “had put her up to something.” He stated that D.T.’s mother had great

influence over her and often sought to undo the progress Thomas had made in his

relationship with D.T. In the first conversation, Thomas said that he had no idea

what was going on; he further alleged that D.T. was seeing someone once a month

for her depression prior to the incident. In the third conversation, Thomas expressed

that he was growing frustrated with their conversations, continuing to believe that

D.T. and her mother were up to something. He testified that he did not hear D.T.

when she mentioned him licking her. Thomas stated that when he said “what

happened was between us,” he was referring to the lunch conversation about the will.

In reference to the statement, “it was a test,” Thomas denied ever “exposing her

physical person.” Thomas continued that he was testing D.T. with multiple things;

he first wanted to see D.T.’s reaction to not being in his will, but did not explain

what the other tests were.

On cross-examination, Thomas said he did not recall sending D.T. the

following text message about tongue piercings:

Tongue piercings is [sic] one of the most popular
piercings. It’s shocking, provocative, and fantastic for oral
sex for both sexes. But at the same time, no one needs to
know you have it. Janet Jackson, Keith Flint from Prodigy,
Mel B from Spice Girls, and Malcolm Jamal Warner from
The Cosby Show all sport pierced tongues.

Thomas further alleged the text message about him being “well endowed” was not

directed at D.T., but rather was a joke between Thomas and D.T. arising from a

situation in which one of Ms. Thomas’s colleagues had approached him at Ms.

10

Thomas’s house. Thomas acknowledged sending the text about D.T. in stilettos, but

complained that it was taken out of context. Thomas further claimed the text, “I

want to give it twisted baby” was a typo, and he meant to send, “Don’t get it twisted,

baby” instead.

Thomas denied ever commenting on or performing oral sex on D.T.,

further stating that he thought it was a nasty thing to do to another person. Thomas

then volunteered, “Now, if she would have said I had intercourse with her, that would

have been a different story.” Thomas then gave an account of how D.T. had told

him, in detail, about how her boyfriend had performed oral sex on her. Thomas next

asserted he thought the comments about “the other night” and oral sex referred to

him finding D.T. performing fellatio in the townhouse parking lot in March.

III.

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, this court

finds no errors patent.

IV.

LAW AND DISCUSSION

Thomas now appeals his felony conviction and sentence pursuant to

La.Const. art. 5, § 10. In asserting that no non-frivolous issues exist on which to

base an appeal, Thomas’s appellate attorney filed a Motion to Withdraw and

accompanying brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396

(1967), and State v. Jyles, 96-2669 (La. 12/12/97), 704 So.2d 241. Thomas filed a

pro se appellate brief with this court thereafter alleging insufficiency of the evidence

11

and an unconstitutionally excessive sentence. We will first consider Thomas’s pro

se allegations.

PRO SE ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR:

In Thomas’s pro se brief, he “respectfully requests the Court to review

the record for errors patent on the face of the record and review any and all new

evidence entered. In accord with such a review, the defendant asks the Court to

reverse his conviction and sentence.” Thomas contends there is insufficient

evidence to support his conviction and asks this court to enter an order of acquittal.

He additionally challenges his sentence as unconstitutionally excessive.

At the outset, this court may not “review any and all new evidence

entered” as Thomas has requested. As mentioned above, the record neither reveals

any errors patent on its face, nor does it indicate that any new evidence has been

entered. Further, appellate courts may neither review evidence not entered into the

record on appeal, nor receive any new evidence. Had there been any new evidence,

review thereof would constitute the taking of evidence and thus the exercise of

original jurisdiction with which we are not vested. See La.Const. art. 5, § 10; and

see Barber v. Testa, 331 So.2d 139 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1976).

Sufficiency of the Evidence:

Thomas asserts that the evidence used to support his conviction for

attempted sexual battery is insufficient. He specifically argues that “there was no

video or third party witness evidence offered to confirm the allegations in this case,”

and maintains that the jury’s verdict was based solely on “D.T’s testimony that the

actions occurred and the circumstantial nature of text messages and voice recordings

between Thomas and D.T. in the days following the alleged incident.”

12

Generally, when a sufficiency of the evidence allegation is raised on

appeal, the allegation is addressed first because if the allegation has merit, a

defendant could obtain an acquittal of the conviction which could render the

remaining allegations of errors moot. Hudson v. Louisiana, 450 U.S. 40, 101 S.Ct.

970 (1981); State v. Hearold, 603 So.2d 731 (La.1992).

When the issue of sufficiency of evidence is raised on appeal, the

reviewing court determines whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most

favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential

elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443

U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781 (1979); State v. Mussall, 523 So.2d 1305 (La.1988).

Discretion in determinations of credibility is vested in the jury, which may accept or

reject testimony within the bounds of rationality, and we will only impinge upon its

discretion “to the extent necessary to guarantee the fundamental protection of due

process of law.” Mussall, 523 So.2d at 1310. Thus, other than ensuring the

sufficiency evaluation standard of Jackson, “the appellate court should not second-

guess the credibility determination of the trier of fact,” but rather, it should defer to

the rational credibility and evidentiary determinations of the jury. State v. Ryan, 07-

504, p. 2 (La.App. 3 Cir. 11/7/07), 969 So.2d 1268, 1270 (quoting State v. Lambert,

97-64, p. 5 (La.App. 3 Cir. 9/30/98), 720 So.2d 724, 727).

However, the Jackson standard “does not permit the reviewing court to

view just the evidence most favorable to the prosecution and then to decide whether

that evidence convinced it beyond a reasonable doubt.” Mussall, 523 So.2d at 1310.

“Where there is conflicting testimony about factual matters, the resolution of which

depends upon a determination of the credibility of the witnesses, the matter is one of

the weight of the evidence, not its sufficiency.” State v. Allen, 36,180, p. 5 (La.App.

13

2 Cir. 9/18/02), 828 So.2d 622, 626, writs denied, 02-2595 (La. 3/28/03), 840 So.2d

566, 02-2997 (La. 6/27/03), 847 So.2d 1255, cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1185, 124 S.Ct.

1404 (2004). “Applied in cases relying on circumstantial evidence,” such as the

instant case where there is no direct evidence of a sexual battery other than the

victim’s testimony, the Jackson standard of review means that when a jury

“‘reasonably rejects the hypothesis of innocence presented by the defendant[ ], that

hypothesis falls, and the defendant is guilty unless there is another hypothesis which

raises a reasonable doubt.’” State v. Strother, 09-2357, pp. 10-11 (La. 10/22/10), 49

So.3d 372, 378 (quoting State v. Captville, 448 So.2d 676, 680 (La.1984)).

The State charged Thomas with one count of sexual battery, and the

jury unanimously found Thomas guilty of the lesser included offense of attempted

sexual battery. Sexual battery is defined, in pertinent part, as “the intentional

touching of the anus or genitals of the victim by the offender using any

instrumentality or any part of the body of the offender” when the “offender acts

without the consent of the victim.” La.R.S. 14:43.1(A)(1). An attempt to commit a

crime constitutes a separate but lesser grade of the crime intended, and occurs when:

“[a]ny person who, having a specific intent to commit a crime, does . . . an act for

the purpose of and tending directly toward the accomplishing of his object[.]”

La.R.S. 14:27(A). Thus, the State must prove Thomas did an act for the purpose of

and tending directly toward touching D.T.’s genitals.

Though Thomas argues a lack of independent, direct evidence

supporting D.T.’s testimony in asserting his innocence, “Louisiana jurisprudence

has consistently held that the testimony of the victim alone can be sufficient to

establish the elements of a sexual offense, even if there is no physical evidence.”

State v. Simon, 10-1111, p. 7 (La.App. 3 Cir. 4/13/11), 62 So.3d 318, 323 (quoting

14

State v. Leyva-Martinez, 07-1255, pp. 6-7 (La.App. 3 Cir. 4/30/08), 981 So.2d 276,

282, writ denied, 08-1200 (La. 1/30/09), 999 So.2d 747), writ denied, 11-8 (La.

11/4/11), 75 So.3d 922. Further, “[i]n the absence of internal contradiction or

irreconcilable conflict with physical evidence, one witness’ testimony, if believed

by the trier of fact, is sufficient support for a requisite factual conclusion.” State v.

Robinson, 02-1869, p. 16 (La. 4/14/04), 874 So.2d 66, 79, cert. denied, 543 U.S.

1023, 125 S.Ct. 658 (2004).

At trial, D.T. testified that Thomas held her down, forcibly removed her

underwear while she tried to fight him off, and licked her genitals, specifically, her

clitoris. D.T.’s mother, Lisa Burgess, testified to these events as relayed to her by

D.T. In seeking out law enforcement at her mother’s behest, D.T. also shared details

of the incident with both Sergeant Ashley Irby and Ms. Hammons.

Having accepted D.T.’s testimony alone as sufficient to satisfy the

elements of attempted sexual battery, any rational trier of fact could have found

beyond a reasonable doubt that Thomas was guilty of the sexual offense for which

he was convicted. After hearing conflicting testimony from both the victim and the

defendant, as well as that of several witnesses, the jury returned a unanimous guilty

verdict of the lesser included offense of attempted sexual battery. Because

credibility determinations are the sole province of the fact finder, the jury was free

to accept D.T.’s version of the facts as more credible, and likewise reject Thomas’s

conflicting hypothesis of innocence advanced at trial. Accordingly, we find the

evidence presented, when viewed in the light most favorable to the State, was

sufficient to sustain the jury’s unanimous verdict of guilt.

15

Excessive Sentence Review:

Thomas challenges his sentence as unconstitutionally excessive. At his

sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced Thomas to eighteen months

imprisonment at hard labor without the benefit of probation, parole, or suspension

of sentence. At trial, Thomas testified that he was forty-nine years old, had been

continuously employed throughout his life as a productive member of society, and

had no criminal record.

Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure Article 894.1(C) requires the

trial court to “state for the record the considerations taken into account and the

factual basis therefor in imposing sentence.” At sentencing, the trial court stated:

The court has taken into consideration the factors
that it must consider when sentencing, the factors stated in
Code of Criminal Procedure Articles.

I also take into consideration the damage done to the
victim.

The court also considers the age of the defendant.

The court considers the age of the victim at the time.

The court notes that - finds that Mr. Thomas has a
lifelong history of being a law-abiding citizen, except for
this situation here. He has been a productive member of
society his entire adult life.

And the court does note that the - I was here during
this trial. I heard all of the evidence of the circumstances
under which the sexual - the attempted sexual battery
occurred, the circumstances surrounding that and the
circumstances that followed immediately thereafter and
for quite some time, and the circumstances that led up to
the filing of charges.

I note that he was not convicted of sexual battery,
but attempted sexual battery. The jury - that was the jury’s
decision after they heard all the evidence. And I do not
question the jury.

16

I cannot put you on probation. The law doesn’t
allow it. I’m prohibited from doing so.

I sentence you to serve eighteen months at hard
labor.

You have a period of two years from the date this
sentence becomes final to assert any claim for post-
conviction relief if you believe anything has been done
illegally or improperly in your case.

Following imposition of sentence, the defense made a general, unsupported oral

Motion to Reconsider Sentence, and the motion was denied.

The failure to include a specific basis for the Motion to Reconsider

Sentence precludes a defendant from raising any objection to the sentence, including

excessiveness, on appeal. La.Code Crim.P. art. 881.1(E). Though Thomas’s claim

is barred under La.Code Crim.P. art. 881.1, this court, in the interest of justice, will

review his sentence for bare excessiveness pursuant to State v. Graves, 01-156

(La.App. 3 Cir. 10/3/01), 798 So.2d 1090, writ denied, 02-29 (La. 10/14/02), 827

So.2d 420. This court has set forth the following standard to be used in reviewing

excessive sentence claims:

[Louisiana Constitution Article] I, § 20 guarantees
that, “[n]o law shall subject any person to cruel or unusual
punishment.” To constitute an excessive sentence, the
reviewing court must find the penalty so grossly
disproportionate to the severity of the crime as to shock
our sense of justice or that the sentence makes no
measurable contribution to acceptable penal goals and is,
therefore, nothing more than a needless imposition of pain
and suffering. The trial court has wide discretion in the
imposition of sentence within the statutory limits and such
sentence shall not be set aside as excessive absent a
manifest abuse of discretion. The relevant question is
whether the trial court abused its broad sentencing
discretion, not whether another sentence might have been
more appropriate.

17

State v. Barling, 00-1241, 00-1591, p. 12 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1/31/01), 779 So.2d 1035,

1042, writ denied, 01-838 (La. 2/1/02), 808 So.2d 331 (citations omitted) (second

alteration in original).

In deciding whether a sentence shocks the sense of justice or makes no

meaningful contribution to acceptable penal goals, this court has held:

[A]n appellate court may consider several factors
including the nature of the offense, the circumstances of
the offender, the legislative purpose behind the
punishment and a comparison of the sentences imposed
for similar crimes. While a comparison of sentences
imposed for similar crimes may provide some insight, “it
is well settled that sentences must be individualized to the
particular offender and to the particular offense
committed.” Additionally, it is within the purview of the
trial court to particularize the sentence because the trial
judge “remains in the best position to assess the
aggravating and mitigating circumstances presented by
each case.”

State v. Smith, 02-719, p. 4 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2/12/03), 846 So.2d 786, 789, writ denied,

03-562 (La. 5/30/03), 845 So.2d 1061 (citations omitted).

Under La.R.S. 14:43.1(C)(1), “[w]hoever commits the crime of sexual

battery shall be punished by imprisonment, with or without hard labor, without

benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence, for not more than ten years.”

The application of the attempt statute adjusts the penalty range to zero to five years,

with or without hard labor, and without benefit of probation, parole, or suspension

of sentence: “In all other cases he shall be . . . imprisoned . . . in the same manner

as for the offense attempted; such . . . imprisonment shall not exceed one-half of

the . . . longest term of imprisonment prescribed for the offense so attempted[.]”

La.R.S. 14:27(D)(3).

18

In State v. Collins, 44,248, p. 23 (La.App. 2 Cir. 5/27/09), 12 So.3d

1069, 1084, the second circuit found the maximum sentence of five years for a

conviction of attempted sexual battery was not excessive:

The record does not show that the defendant’s
sentence is grossly out of proportion with the acts
committed. With regard to the attempted sexual battery
conviction, the defendant was sentenced to the maximum
of 5 years at hard labor without benefit of probation, parole
or suspension. The defendant was originally charged with
sexual battery and faced a 10-year sentence, and although
he was only convicted of attempted sexual battery, the
defendant has not shown that this was a “purposeless and
needless inflection of pain and suffering.”

The defendant in Collins had both aggravating and mitigating factors not present in

the instant case. Here, however, “the trial judge need not articulate every

aggravating and mitigating circumstance outlined in art. 894.1[;] the record must

reflect that he adequately considered these guidelines in particularizing the sentence

to the defendant.” State v. Smith, 433 So.2d 688, 698 (La.1983).

As required by La.Code Crim.P. art. 894.1, the sentencing transcript

reflects that the trial court stated the considerations taken into account and the factual

bases for imposing the eighteen-month sentence. Thomas received a sentence of one

and one-half years at hard labor, which is less than one-third of the maximum

possible penalty of five years. Additionally, we note that Thomas was originally

charged with sexual battery, and thus received a significant benefit from the jury’s

verdict convicting him of the lesser included offense of attempted sexual battery.

Therefore, Thomas’s eighteen-month sentence is not so grossly disproportionate to

the severity of the crime that it is shocking, fails to meaningfully contribute to

acceptable penal goals, or constitutes a needless imposition of pain and suffering.

19

As such, this court finds no manifest abuse of the sentencing court’s wide discretion

in determining an appropriate penalty in the instant case.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR:

After asserting that a thorough review of the record reveals no non-

frivolous issues, appellate counsel for Thomas asks this court to review the record

for errors patent that may reverse Thomas’s conviction and sentence, and also

requests that this court grant the attached Motion to Withdraw as directed by Anders

v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396 (1967), and State v. Jyles, 96-2669 (La.

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

In State v. Benjamin, 573 So.2d 528, 531 (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.

The Louisiana Supreme Court approved the fourth circuit’s analysis in State v.

Mouton, 95-981 (La. 4/28/95), 653 So.2d 1176, and, again, in Jyles, 704 So.2d 241.

20

As noted above, the record reveals no errors patent on its face. While

counsel concedes that the trial court made the following errors, he contends that such

errors were either harmless, or inured to the benefit of the defendant. First, counsel

explains that, upon examination of the record, he believes the trial court made an

error in ruling on a Batson objection by the defense during voir dire, but that such

error was harmless. See Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712 (1986).

Next, noting that the trial court may have erred in its evidentiary rulings on some of

the defense’s objections, counsel again asserts that any such error was harmless.

Last, counsel reveals that there was an error in the jury instructions regarding

whether sexual battery was a general or specific intent crime, but that such error was

in Thomas’s favor.

Counsel further states that he has reviewed the sufficiency of the

evidence presented at trial, and that a rational trier of fact could have found the

essential elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Counsel also

reviewed Thomas’s sentence and concluded that since it was one-third of the

maximum possible sentence for the offense, and because neither probation nor

suspension of sentence is allowed for this conviction, the sentence imposed was not

excessive.

Batson Objection at Voir Dire:

Appellate counsel asserts that the trial court erred in its analysis

following trial counsel’s Batson challenge at voir dire. Nevertheless, appellate

counsel believes the error was harmless because the trial court’s ruling established

that the State at least provided sufficient race-neutral reasons for striking the

21

potential juror, regardless of whether the defense made out a prima facie case of

purposeful discrimination.

During voir dire, defense counsel raised a constitutional Batson

challenge after the State exercised its first peremptory strike against Mr. Worick, a

black male juror. Prior to either side exercising peremptory challenges, both the

prosecution and the defense agreed to jointly strike Ms. Knatt, a black female, for

cause, as both sides believed that she showed prejudice. After Ms. Knatt was

removed, Mr. Worick was the only remaining black member of the potential jury

panel. The State used its first peremptory strike against Mr. Worick, and then struck

two white females thereafter, Ms. Hebert and Ms. LeBlanc.

In Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, the United States Supreme Court

held that the use of peremptory challenges to exclude persons from a jury based on

their race violates the Equal Protection Clause. The jurisprudence regarding Batson

is well-settled in Louisiana:

A defendant’s Batson challenge to a peremptory
strike requires a three-step inquiry. First, the trial court
must determine whether the defendant has made a prima
facie showing that the prosecutor exercised a peremptory
challenge on the basis of race. Second, if the showing is
made, the burden shifts to the prosecutor to present a race-
neutral explanation for striking the juror in question.
Although the prosecutor must present a comprehensive
reason, the second step of this process does not demand an
explanation that is persuasive, or even plausible; so long
as the reason is not inherently discriminatory, it suffices.
Third, the court must then determine whether the
defendant has carried his burden of proving purposeful
discrimination. This final step involves evaluating the
persuasiveness of the justification proffered by the
prosecutor, but the ultimate burden of persuasion
regarding racial motivation rests with, and never shifts
from, the opponent of the strike.

22

Alex v. Rayne Concrete Serv., 05-1457, 05-2344, 05-2520, p. 15 (La. 1/26/07), 951

So.2d 138, 150-51 (quoting State v. Snyder, 98-1078 (La. 9/6/06), 942 So.2d 484).

In discussing the first Batson criterion, the United States Supreme

Court has explained that “a prima facie case of discrimination can be made out by

offering a wide variety of evidence, so long as the sum of the proffered facts gives

‘rise to an inference of discriminatory purpose.’” Johnson v. California, 545 U.S.

162, 169, 125 S.Ct. 2410, 2416 (2005) (footnote omitted) (quoting Batson, 476 U.S.

at 96). The court further explained:

“To establish such a case, the defendant first must show
that he is a member of a cognizable racial group, and that
the prosecutor has exercised peremptory challenges to
remove from the venire members of the defendant’s race.
Second, the defendant is entitled to rely on the fact, as to
which there can be no dispute, that peremptory challenges
constitute a jury selection practice that permits ‘those to
discriminate who are of a mind to discriminate.’ Finally,
the defendant must show that these facts and any other
relevant circumstances raise an inference that the
prosecutor used that practice to exclude the veniremen
from the petit jury on account of their race.”

Id. (quoting Batson, 476 U.S. at 96). Therefore, “a defendant satisfies the

requirements of Batson’s first step by producing evidence sufficient to permit the

trial judge to draw an inference that discrimination has occurred.” Johnson, 545 U.S.

at 170.

The defense objected to the peremptory strike against Mr. Worick by

stating that Mr. Worick was black, and that “[h]e didn’t say anything adverse at all

to the State’s case.” Before the trial court was able to rule on whether the defense

made out its prima facie case of purposeful discrimination, the prosecution

interjected to assert that the defense must first show a “pattern,” and that it was

“impossible to show a pattern when there were only two African Americans on the

23

eighteen and one was challenged for cause, joint cause.” The prosecution further

insisted that the defense “ha[s] to show a pattern first” in order to establish a prima

facie case, to which the defense replied that “[t]he pattern is that the only black was

challenged.”2

The trial court then announced that it was going to hold a Batson

hearing and that the State was “going to have [to] show some non-biased reason for

challenging him.” After reading aloud La.Code Crim.P. art. 795(C), the trial court

asked the defense to once again state its objection. The defense responded that Mr.

Worick was “only challenged because of his race,” and that “there was nothing stated

in any questioning to elicit a challenge for him” besides his race. The following

colloquy took place:

BY THE COURT:

Okay. All right. Defense, with regard to response,
with regard to whether or not a prima facie case supporting
that the objection is made by the objecting party that it was
- that prospective juror, Mr. Steven Worick, was removed

2
We note that appellate counsel correctly states in his brief that both the trial court and the
State were wrong to presume that a “pattern” is the only way to establish a prima facie showing of
purposeful discrimination. The Supreme Court made clear in Batson itself that “pattern” was but
one example of establishing a prima facie case:

In deciding whether the defendant has made the requisite showing, the trial
court should consider all relevant circumstances. For example, a “pattern” of
strikes against black jurors included in the particular venire might give rise to an
inference of discrimination. Similarly, the prosecutor’s questions and statements
during voir dire examination and in exercising his challenges may support or refute
an inference of discriminatory purpose. These examples are merely illustrative.

Batson, 476 U.S. at 96-97 (emphasis added).

In overruling Swain v. Alabama, 380 U.S. 202, 85 S.Ct. 824 (1965), a prerequisite showing
of a “pattern” of discriminatory strikes was specifically rejected by Batson. Indeed, “[f]or
evidentiary requirements to dictate that ‘several must suffer discrimination’ before one could
object, McCray v. New York, 461 U.S., at 965, 103 S.Ct., at 2440 (MARSHALL, J., dissenting
from denial of certiorari), would be inconsistent with the promise of equal protection to all.”
Batson, 476 U.S. at 95-6. Therefore, this court finds that while showing a pattern would have been
sufficient in order to establish a prima facie case of purposeful discrimination, it was not necessary
for the defense to do so as the State so insisted.

24

by the state solely because of his race, has that been made,
the prima facie case?

BY MS. CHARRIER [STATE]:

Your Honor, Number One, I don’t think Mr. Burton
has shown a prima facie case indicating that this is a
pattern of striking jurors, which is the first requirement,
that he showed that it is a pattern. It’s not a pattern.

Number One, the state - that was the very first
challenge the state used. I don’t know how that could be
a pattern, in and of itself, when only one challenge has
been used.

Secondly, the state did use two additional
challenges, peremptory challenges, and those were on two
white females. So it’s not a pattern.

There were only two African Americans on this
particular panel. One was excluded for cause by both
myself and Mr. Burton, leaving Mr. Worick.

I do have notes indicating my reasons for using the
peremptory challenge on Mr. Worick.

He had indicated that an allegation of a sex crime is
an easy allegation to make. He in fact told us about a
friend that he had that was accused of this particular sort
of crime and found out later that it wasn’t true at all. So,
for that reason, he thinks that anybody can pretty much
make this allegation.

He also indicated that a victim should call 9-1-1
immediately after this sort of crime happens.

There were also several occasions where I
specifically called Mr. Worick by name to answer
questions, and he wasn’t necessarily listening to me[,] and
I had to repeat the question several times. So[,] I’m not
sure that he was paying attention throughout the process.

That’s it, Your Honor.

BY THE COURT:

So[,] you gave me some race-neutral reasons for -

....

25

- for excluding him.

Mr. Burton?

BY MR. BURTON [DEFENSE]:

As far as the issue of a pattern, Your Honor, there
was one black, the only black that was on the jury, and that
black was eliminated by the state. And that, in and of itself,
is a pattern. It’s not the fact of the matter after that there
was no other blacks eliminated, because there was no other
blacks on the jury to eliminate. So[,] I believe the pattern
has been established.

And as far as - the state didn’t inquire if he wasn’t
paying attention, because he answered all of the questions
asked of him.

And also he did say, when asked about the 9-1-1,
that they should but they might have been scared. So[,] he
gave a reason why they might not, and that’s what she had
asked. He answered the question.

So[,] we believe that the basis is the race of the
defendant.

BY THE COURT:

Okay. Well, it’s not obvious from the voir dire by
the state that her reasons for excluding him are based on
race at all.

Probably, you made a mistake of fact. And I’m
going to go ahead and correct that for the record.

The first juror, Dana Knatt . . . she is also an African
American on the jury, okay? So[,] you had two of them.
And you had challenged her for cause, and the state had
challenged her for cause, okay? And both of your reasons
were non-race related, okay?

....

So[,] there was more than one juror on there.

BY MR. BURTON:

I didn’t count Miss Knatt, Your Honor, just for the
record, because of the fact we both had cause that she

26

wasn’t - she stated cause of her own. This was a non-cause,
and that’s why I stated it like that.

BY THE COURT:

Okay. So[,] he was the only one remaining for
peremptory challenges.

....

Okay. He certainly wasn’t - yet, the state has given
non-race related reasons and basis for that. And I believe
them.

Let me tell you something. If I even smelled it, I’d
jump on it, okay? And I don’t smell it, okay? It [the
Batson objection] doesn’t pass the smell test with me here,
okay? I think he was removed for non-race related reasons.

And so your motion is denied.

As illustrated above, the trial court made a number of errors with

respect to its Batson analysis. After the defense twice asserted its Batson challenge,

the trial court failed to definitively rule on whether a prima facie case was established.

Instead, the trial court appeared to shift the burden to the State to offer race-neutral

reasons for striking Mr. Worick, which would be consistent with the second inquiry

of a Batson analysis. In doing so, however, the trial court improperly asked the State

whether it believed the defense made out a prima facie case, after which the State

began to offer race-neutral reasons for challenging Mr. Worick. This court notes

that it is the trial judge’s prerogative alone to draw his own inferences in determining

whether the defense established a prima facie case of discrimination, and certainly

not that of the State.

Despite the trial court’s misguided Batson analysis, the Louisiana

Supreme Court has held that:

A trial judge may . . . effectively collapse the first two
stages of the Batson procedure, whether or not the

27

defendant established a prima facie case of purposeful
discrimination, and may then perform the critical third step
of weighing the defendant’s proof and the prosecutor’s
race-neutral reasons to determine discriminatory intent.”
State v. Jacobs, 99-0991, p. 8 (La. 5/15/01), 803 So.2d 933,
941 [, cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1087, 122 S.Ct. 826 (2002)].

State v. Broussard, 16-1836, p. 4 (La. 1/30/18), __ So.3d __. Further, “[a]lthough

there may be ‘any number of bases on which a prosecutor reasonably [might] believe

that it is desirable to strike a juror who is not excusable for cause . . ., the prosecutor

must give a clear and reasonably specific explanation of his legitimate reasons for

exercising the challeng[e].’” Miller-El v. Dretke, 545 U.S. 231, 239, 125 S.Ct. 2317,

2324 (2005) (quoting Batson, 476 U.S. at 98, n.20, 106 S.Ct. 1724).

Among the reasons the State gave for challenging Mr. Worick was the

potential juror’s indication of possible partiality in favor of Thomas and bias against

the State’s case. Mr. Worick had a friend who had been falsely accused of a sex

crime and thought, therefore, false allegations of sexual impropriety were easy to

make. The potential juror further believed that true allegations would be indicated

by a call to emergency services immediately following the offense. Moreover, Mr.

Worick seemed disinterested in listening to the prosecutor during questioning.

In overruling the Batson objection, the trial court expressly found the

prosecutor’s race-neutral reasons believable and, implicitly, reasonable. Though we

note that the defense was permitted to employ a wide variety of evidence in

establishing a prima facie case without the need to show a “pattern,” the trial court

nevertheless stated reasons for ruling that satisfies Batson’s third and final inquiry:

BY THE COURT:

Defense could not have made a prima facie case,
because it was the only person there and the state - there
was no evidence to support a prima facie case.

28

....

Okay. There was just none available. If we’d have
had more African Americans of the jury, then I could have
made that assessment, okay? I don’t see - there’s just not
enough to go on to help this fact-finder. So[,] no prima
facie case was made. Even if one was made, then the state
has articulated believable reasons for removing him which
are non-race related.

Unless clearly erroneous, the trial court’s ruling on the issue of

discriminatory intent must be sustained where “determinations of credibility and

demeanor lie ‘peculiarly within a trial judge’s province.’” Snyder v. Louisiana, 552

U.S. 472, 476, 128 S.Ct. 1203, 1208 (2008) (quoting Hernandez v. New York, 500

U.S. 352, 365, 111 S.Ct. 1859 (1991)). In ruling that “no prima facie case was made,”

the trial court evaluated and accepted the State’s race-neutral justifications in

determining that the defense had not carried its ultimate burden of persuasion.

Therefore, in the absence of exceptional circumstances, this court must

defer to the trial court’s determination, and likewise finds that such a determination

was not clearly erroneous.

Motion in Limine and Objection Regarding Text Message Transcript:

Prior to trial, the trial court conducted a hearing on a motion in limine

filed by the defense seeking to have text messages between Thomas and D.T. made

before the incident excluded on grounds that they were not res gestae. The trial court

initially denied relief on grounds that the messages showed the development of

D.T.’s relationship with Thomas.

At trial, the defense objected to the introduction of a transcript of the

same text messages, identified as State’s Exhibit Number 1, by asserting a lack of

proper foundation and challenging the admissibility of hearsay evidence. Though

29

the trial court sustained Thomas’s objection, it ultimately allowed the introduction

of State’s Exhibit Number 2, a download of the information from D.T.’s cellular

phone containing the same information. However, because the State failed to

publish that exhibit to the jury, this court finds that there was no prejudice arising

from the trial court’s initial denial of Thomas’s motion in limine.

Thomas’s Evidentiary Objections at Trial:

During trial, the defense made a number of objections to evidence being

introduced at trial. In reviewing the record, appellate counsel asserts that any errors

made with respect to the evidentiary rulings were harmless and did not prejudice any

substantial rights of the defendant. Such rulings focused on D.T. seeing a therapist,

her current state of mind regarding pre-incident text messages received from Thomas,

relevance and hearsay objections to Ms. Burgess’s testimony, admission of State’s

Exhibit Number 3, and Thomas’s cross-examination.

This court has held:

Absent clear abuse, we will not intrude on the broad
discretion of a trial court in evidentiary decisions. It is
within the trial court’s province to determine the potential
for prejudice afforded by certain evidence and testimony
and the degree to which such prejudice might exceed
probative value and taint the jury verdict.

Nugent v. Cont’l Cas. Co., 634 So.2d 406, 408 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1994). Further, error

may not be predicated upon an evidentiary ruling unless it affects a substantial right

of the defendant. La.Code Evid. art. 103(A).

Our review of the record shows no reversible error arising from the trial

court’s evidentiary rulings.

30

Jury Instructions:

Appellate counsel asserts that though the trial court erred in instructing

the jury that sexual battery is a specific intent crime, such error inured to Thomas’s

benefit. Though defense counsel acknowledged the error in Thomas’s favor, neither

party initially objected to the jury instructions as given. The State objected as the

trial court informed the panel that sexual battery is a specific intent crime, but the

defense maintained it was a specific intent crime. The trial court ruled that sexual

battery was a specific intent crime because the offender had to intend to touch the

victim’s genitals.

In State v. Cage, 583 So.2d 1125 (La.1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 874,

112 S.Ct. 211 (1991), the Louisiana Supreme Court stated that an improper jury

instruction is a trial error and is subject to a harmless error analysis.

This court has consistently held sexual battery to be a general intent

crime. State v. Bourque, 09-1092 (La.App. 3 Cir. 4/7/10), 33 So.3d 1092 (citing

State v. Stevenson, 05-52 (La.App. 5 Cir. 6/28/05), 908 So.2d 48, writ denied, 05-

2592 (La. 6/2/06), 929 So.2d 1247), writ denied, 10-1062 (La. 12/10/10), 51 So.3d

722. While attempted sexual battery requires a defendant to act with specific intent

pursuant to La.R.S. 14:27(A), Thomas was charged with one count of sexual battery,

which requires only a showing of general intent. See La.R.S. 14:43.1.

As appellate counsel correctly notes, the error in the jury instructions

was in Thomas’s favor since it increased the State’s burden in proving he acted with

specific intent, when it only needed to show that he acted with general intent in order

to convict Thomas of sexual battery. Therefore, the error in the jury instruction

cannot be said to prejudice a substantial right of Thomas, and thus constitutes

harmless error.

31

V.

CONCLUSION

Pursuant to Anders and Benjamin, this court has performed an

independent, thorough review of the record, including pleadings, minute entries,

charging instrument, and transcripts. The State properly charged Thomas via bill of

information signed by an assistant district attorney with one count of sexual battery.

Thomas was present at and represented by counsel at all crucial stages of the

proceedings. A jury unanimously convicted Thomas of attempted sexual battery, a

lesser included offense. The trial court subsequently sentenced Thomas to serve

eighteen months at hard labor without benefit of probation, parole, and suspension

of sentence. The jury verdict and Thomas’s sentence are legal in all respects. This

court finds no non-frivolous issue that would support Thomas’s appeal. Based on

the foregoing, this court concludes that appellate counsel has demonstrated he

performed a thorough review of the record and found no non-frivolous issues.

Accordingly, this court affirms Thomas’s conviction and sentence and

grants appellate counsel’s motion to withdraw.

AFFIRMED. MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED.

32