State of Louisiana v. Bradley James Boudreaux A/K/A Bradley Boudreaux

| NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

19-813

STATE OF LOUISIANA
VERSUS

BRADLEY JAMES BOUDREAUX
A/K/A BRADLEY BOUDREAUX

Ree KKK EE

APPEAL FROM THE
SIXTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF IBERIA, NO. 17-839
HONORABLE SUZANNE M. DEMAHY, DISTRICT JUDGE

kek kote te de tet oe He

VAN H. KYZAR
JUDGE

RERKKRKKKEKEK

Court composed of Sylvia R. Cooks, Phyllis M. Keaty, and Van H. Kyzar, Judges.

CONVICTION AND SENTENCE AFFIRMED.
MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED.

Bruce G. Whittaker

Louisiana Appellate Project

1215 Prytania Street, Suite 332

New Orleans, LA 70130

(504) 554-8674

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT:
Bradley James Boudreaux

M. Bofill Duhe

District Attorney

Sixteenth Judicial District

300 Iberia Street, Suite 200

New Iberia, LA 70560

(337) 369-4420

COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE:
State of Louisiana

Kyzar, Judge.

Defendant, Bradley James Boudreaux, was charged by bill of information
filed on August 11, 2017, with second degree battery, a violation of La.R.S.
14:34.1, and simple criminal damage to property between $500 and $50,000, a
violation of La.R.S. 14:56. On September 10, 2018, Defendant entered an open-
ended plea to second degree battery. As part of the plea, the State agreed not to
charge Defendant as a habitual offender and to dismiss the criminal damage to
property charge. Defendant was sentenced on January 10, 2019, to serve five years

at hard labor, to run concurrently with the sentence for attempted second degree

murder imposed in trial court docket number 17-840.' Defendant filed a Motion to
Reconsider Sentence on February 7, 2019. A hearing on the motion was held on
August 13, 2019, and the motion was denied. A Motion for Appeal was filed on
September 13, 2019, and was subsequently 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 motion to
withdraw. Defendant was advised, via certified mail, that counsel filed an Anders
brief, and he was given until February 3, 2020, to file a pro se brief. No pro se
brief was filed. For the following reasons, Defendant’s conviction and sentence
for second degree battery are affirmed, and appellate counsel’s motion to withdraw
is granted.

FACTS
On or about May 16, 2017, Defendant beat household member Pamela

Tignor during an argument in which Defendant alleged she was talking to another

The conviction for attempted second degree murder is before this court in docket
number 19-814.

man on Facebook. While outside the home, Defendant broke Tignor’s cell phone.
He then dragged her inside by the hair and beat her. Tignor sought medical
attention five days after the incident and was diagnosed with a rib fracture.
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

Pursuant to Anders, Defendant’s appellate counsel filed a brief stating he
could find no non-frivolous issues upon which to base an appeal. 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.

ace

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] at 442, 108 S.Ct. [1895] at 1903 [(1988)].” State v.

Jyles, 96-2669, p. 2 (La. 12/12/97), 704 So.2d 241, 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 notes Defendant entered into a counseled plea and did not
reserve his right to seek review of any of the trial court’s rulings pursuant to State
v. Crosby, 338 So.2d 584 (La.1976). Counsel further points out that, in the plea
form signed by Defendant and in the plea colloquy, Defendant acknowledged he
understood that by pleading guilty he was giving up any right to appeal the
sentence imposed. Counsel then addresses Defendant’s background, the rights he
waived, and the plea form. He alleges there is no basis in the record to support a
claim that the plea was constitutionally infirm. Counsel maintains the plea was
advantageous, as Defendant received a five year sentence when the offense carried
a maximum sentence of eight years. Additionally, the State agreed not to seek
enhancement of the sentence under La.R.S. 15:529.1, and, by agreement, the
sentence runs concurrently with the sentence imposed in another docket number.
Counsel asserts the deal Defendant made appears to have been followed to the
letter by the sentencing court. Counsel states the sentence Defendant received was
“exactly as appellant bargained for in his plea agreement. There thus does not
appear to be a valid claim of sentence excessiveness.”

Pursuant to Anders and Benjamin, we have performed a thorough review of
the record, including the transcripts, pleadings, minute entries, and the charging
instrument. Defendant was properly charged in 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 Crosby. See State v. Aguilar, 14-714 (La.App. 5 Cir. 1/14/15), 167
So.3d 862. Although counsel for Defendant asserts the sentence was exactly as
bargained for, and, by agreement, the sentence runs concurrently with that imposed
in another docket number, Defendant actually entered an open-ended plea, which
means there was no agreed upon sentence or sentencing cap, and the plea
agreement did not address the concurrent nature of the sentence to be imposed.
Nevertheless, the sentence imposed for second degree battery is legal and runs
concurrently with Defendant’s twenty-year sentence for attempted second degree
murder. Furthermore, Defendant waived his right to seek appellate review of his
sentence.

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.