State of Louisiana v. Joshua B. Mayeaux

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

18-382

STATE OF LOUISIANA

Plaintiff-Appellee

VERSUS

JOSHUA MAYEAUX
aka JOSHUA B. MAYEAUX

Defendant-Appellant

************
APPEAL FROM THE
TWELFTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF AVOYELLES, NO. 2017-CR-202716
HONORABLE WILLIAM J. BENNETT, DISTRICT JUDGE
************

JUDGE
BILLY H. EZELL
************

Court composed of John D. Saunders, Billy H. Ezell, and Candyce G. Perret,
Judges.

CONVICTION AND SENTENCE AFFIRMED;
MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED.

Charles A. Ridde, III
District Attorney, Twelfth Judicial District Court
Anthony F. Salario, Assistant District Attorney
P.O. Box 1200
Marksville, Louisiana 71351
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE:
State of Louisiana

Chad Ikerd
Louisiana Appellant Project
P. O. Box 2125
Lafayette, Louisiana 70502-2125
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT:
Joshua Mayeaux
aka Joshua B. Mayeaux

Ezell, Judge.

Defendant, Joshua B. Mayeaux, was charged by bill of information filed on

August 11, 2017, with forgery, a violation of La.R.S. 14:72. Defendant entered a

plea of guilty on November 13, 2017.1 Sentencing was held on February 14, 2018,

and Defendant was ordered to serve one year at hard labor. A motion to reconsider

sentence was filed, and also denied, on March 8, 2018. A notice of appeal with

designation of the record was filed on March 15, 2018, and was granted.

Defendant’s appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396 (1967), alleging the record contains no

non-frivolous issues for appeal and requests this court grant his accompanying

motion to withdraw. Defendant was advised, via certified mail, that counsel filed

an Anders brief, and he was given until September 28, 2018, to file a pro se brief,

which he did not do. For the following reasons, we affirm the conviction and

sentence for forgery and grant appellate counsel’s motion to withdraw.

FACTS

Defendant took a check belonging to Sarah Ducote, made out the check for

$825.00, and signed Ducote’s name to the check.

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.

1
Defendant also pled guilty, in a separate lower court docket number, to seven counts of
unauthorized use of an access card and was sentenced to three months in the parish jail on each
count, to run concurrently with each other and any other sentence previously imposed.

1

ANDERS ANALYSIS

Pursuant to Anders, 386 U.S. 738, Defendant’s appellate counsel filed a brief

stating he could find no errors on appeal that would support the reversal of

Defendant’s conviction or sentence for forgery. Thus, counsel seeks to withdraw.

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.

Counsel’s Anders brief must “assure the court that the indigent defendant’s

constitutional rights have not been violated.” McCoy v. Court of Appeals of

Wisconsin, 486 U.S. 429, 442, 108 S.Ct. 1895, 1903 (1988). See also State v.

Jyles, 96-2669 (La. 12/12/97), 704 So.2d 241. Hence, counsel’s Anders brief must

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.

In his Anders brief, counsel discusses the procedural history and the facts of

the case. Counsel addresses Defendant’s right to appeal. He notes there is nothing

in the record that expressly states Defendant entered a guilty plea with the
2

reservation of his right to seek review of his conviction or any pretrial rulings.

However, it is “less clear” as to whether Defendant “preserve[d] his right to appeal

his conviction and/or whether [he] was properly informed he was waiving his right

to appeal his conviction.” Counsel indicates the judge informed Defendant he had

the right to an attorney, to maintain his plea of not guilty, to a trial by jury, to a

bench trial, to confront and cross-examine witnesses, to subpoena witnesses, not to

testify, and to appeal his case and of the State’s burden of proof. The following

exchange then transpired between the judge and Defendant:

Q. So you understand by pleading guilty you’re giving up your
right to a trial by jury or by judge, you’re giving up your right to
confront and cross examine witnesses and you’re giving up your right
against self-incrimination, do you understand that?

A. Yes, sir.

Counsel avers the judge never specifically informed Defendant that he was giving

up the right to appeal his “case,” as the trial court merely acknowledged that right.

Counsel goes on to point out that at sentencing, the judge told Defendant he

had thirty days to file an appeal. The judge then said: “Objection to the ruling of

the court is noted and error is assigned.” However, no verbal objection was made

by defense counsel. Counsel affirms there was no written plea agreement; thus,

there is no way to establish that Defendant contractually waived his right to appeal

the sentence. Counsel then concludes the question of the excessiveness of

Defendant’s sentence is properly before this court. While counsel feels a first-time

offender should have been given probation, he has determined the reasons set out

by the judge at sentencing reveal no abuse of the trial court’s sentencing discretion.

Forgery carries a sentence of up to ten years, with or without hard labor, and

a fine of not more than $5,000. La.R.S. 14:72. Counsel explains that the judge

3

considered various aggravating and mitigating factors in this matter. The judge

even acknowledged that sentencing a first offender to jail time could be excessive

and looked to case law, including State v. James, 01-2292 (La.App. 1 Cir.

3/28/02), 813 So.2d 659, to support the sentence imposed. In James, the first

circuit upheld a four-year sentence for a first offender convicted of forgery.

Appellate counsel discloses that the judge found that probation was not

proper for Defendant because of his repeated criminal infringements that went

unpunished after he sought rehabilitation for drug abuse. He notes the judge

stated, “It is standard operating procedure and your life has been the committing

offense, get arrested, go to treatment and all is forgiven. That cannot happen on

this occasion.” Counsel notes Defendant received one-tenth of the maximum

sentence for forgery, and he does not believe he can make any non-frivolous

argument that that sentence was an abuse of discretion.

Pursuant to Anders, 386 U.S. 738, and Benjamin, 573 So.2d 528, we have

performed a thorough review of the record, including the transcripts, pleadings,

minute entries, and the charging instrument, and have confirmed the statements

made by appellate counsel. Defendant was properly charged by a bill of

information. He was present and represented by counsel at all crucial stages of the

proceedings. Additionally, Defendant entered an unqualified guilty plea, and that

plea was freely and voluntarily entered after he was advised of his rights pursuant

to Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 89 S.Ct. 1709 (1969). The entry of that plea

waived all pre-plea non-jurisdictional defects, and no rulings were preserved for

appeal under the holding in State v. Crosby, 338 So.2d 584 (La.1976). See State v.

Aguilar, 14-714 (La.App. 5 Cir. 1/14/15), 167 So.3d 862. Furthermore, the

4

sentence imposed for forgery was legal, and an argument for excessive sentence on

this conviction would be frivolous.

We have found no issues which would support an assignment of error on

appeal. Accordingly, Defendant’s conviction and sentence are affirmed, and

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.

5