State of Louisiana v. Albert Vernon Robertson

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT
19-377

STATE OF LOUISIANA
VERSUS

ALBERT VERNON ROBERTSON
A/K/A ALBERT V. ROBERTSON

eis oe ie ok fe oe ie oe oo

APPEAL FROM THE
FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF LAFAYETTE, NO. 125727
HONORABLE EDWARD D. RUBIN, DISTRICT JUDGE

REKKKEKREAEKEK

JUDGE
VAN H. KYZAR

RRKRKREKEKEER
Court composed of D. Kent Savoie, Van H. Kyzar, and Candyce G. Perret, Judges.

APPEAL DISMISSED.
MOTION TO WITHDRAW BY
COUNSEL GRANTED.

Edward K. Bauman

Louisiana Appellate Project

P.O. Box 1641

Lake Charles, LA 70602-1641

(337) 491-0570

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT:
ALBERT VERNON ROBERTSON
A/K/A ALBERT V. ROBERTSON

Keith A. Stutes

District Attorney

Alan Haney

Assistant District Attorney

Fifteenth Judicial District

P. O. Box 3306

Lafayette, LA 70502-3306

(337) 232-5170

COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE:
State of Louisiana

Kyzar, Judge.
On April 4, 2011, the defendant, Albert Vernon Robertson, A/K/A Albert V.
Robertson, entered a plea of not guilty to theft over $500.00, a violation of La.R.S.

14:67.10, four counts of simple burglary, violations of La.R.S. 14:62, and

unauthorized use of a motor vehicle, a violation of La.R.S. 14:68.4.' On June 15,
2011, Defendant entered a plea of guilty to one count of simple burglary, afterwhich
the state dismissed the other remaining counts. On the same date, the State filed a
habitual offender bill. Defendant entered a plea to being a habitual offender, the trial
court ordered a presentence investigation report, and Defendant was advised that as
a second-felony offender, the possible sentencing range was not less than six years
and not more than twenty-four years, at hard labor. On December !2, 2011, at the
sentencing hearing, Defendant requested a continuance, which was denied by the
trial court, and was sentenced as a habitual offender to fourteen years of
imprisonment at hard labor, with credit for time served.

On March 15, 2012, Defendant filed a motion to reconsider the sentence,
which was denied on the same date. On May 16, 2018, Defendant filed a pro se
motion to reconsider the sentence; on May 23, 2018, he filed a second pro se motion
to reconsider the sentence; and, on August 31, 2018, he filed a third pro se motion
to reconsider the sentence, all of which were denied by the trial court.

Defendant, alleging excessiveness, appealed, and this court affirmed his
sentence. State v. Robertson, 12-889 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2/27/13) (unpublished
opinion). On December 7, 2018, Defendant filed a brief in support of an application
for post-conviction relief and out-of-time appeal, alleging that on December 12,

2011, the trial court imposed a sentence of fourteen years of hard labor for the

' LaR‘S. 14:67.10 was repealed by 2017 La. Acts No. 281, § 3.

offense of simple burglary, that he had requested an appeal, and that no appeal was
lodged on his behalf. On December 11, 2018, the trial court granted Defendant’s
application for post-conviction relief and out-of-time appeal.

On February 20, 2019, an appeal was lodged with this court. On February 25,
2019, this court ordered that a hearing be held to determine the entitlement of
Defendant to court-appointed counsel for the purposes of appeal or whether, after an
affirmative showing on the record that the trial court had informed Defendant of the
dangers and disadvantages of self-representation, he made an intelligent and
voluntary waiver of counsel. State v. Robertson, 19-134 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2/25/19)
(unpublished opinion) (see the order issued on 2/25/19).

On April 29, 2019, at the hearing held pursuant to this court’s February 25,
2019 order, the Louisiana Appellate Project was appointed to represent Defendant
in his appeal. The instant appeal was lodged with this court on May 21, 2019. On
June 13, 2019, this court issued a rule to show cause why this matter should not be
dismissed as having been untimely filed and previously appealed, pursuant to
La.Code Crim.P. art. 930.8 and Robertson, 12-889.

On June 28, 2019, Defendant’s counsel filed a brief in compliance with this
court’s June 13, 2019 rule to show cause order, which included a motion to
withdraw. Defendant’s counsel argued that the appeal was untimely and that, if
granted, it would be considered a successive appeal. Defendant’s counsel further
argued that although Defendant had no right to an appeal, the matter should still be
remanded to the trial court for correction of the transcript and minute discrepancy
regarding dismissed charges and that the trial court should be ordered to provide a
corrected Uniform Commitment Order to the appropriate authorities in accordance
with La.Code Crim.P. art. 892(B)(2) and the legal department of the Department of

Corrections. Defendant’s counsel included a motion to withdraw as counsel.

Defendant has already appealed his sentence, which was affirmed by this
court. Robertson, 12-889. Defendant makes no showing that the transcript is
incorrect. This court has obtained an affidavit from the clerk of court stating that the
minute entry of June 15, 2011, in this matter, reflects that the remaining charges
were dismissed by the State and that “[t]he record does not reflect any further
paperwork being filed as to the dismissal of the charges.” Further, we interpret
Defendant’s request regarding the Uniform Commitment Order as relating to the
failure to reflect the dismissal of the other charges, but, for the reasons expressed
above, no correction is warranted at this time. Therefore, we hereby dismiss
Defendant’s appeal and grant Defendant’s counsel’s motion to withdraw.

APPEAL DISMISSED. MOTION TO WITHDRAW FILED BY

COUNSEL GRANTED.

Lad)