State of Louisiana v. Marvin L. Bunyard, Jr.

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

21-202

STATE OF LOUISIANA

VERSUS

MARVIN L. BUNYARD, JR.

**********

APPEAL FROM THE
THIRTIETH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF VERNON, NO. 94391
HONORABLE SCOTT WESTERCHIL, DISTRICT JUDGE

**********

CHARLES G. FITZGERALD
JUDGE

**********

Court composed of Sylvia R. Cooks, Chief Judge, Jonathan W. Perry and Charles G.
Fitzgerald, Judges.

CONVICTION AND SENTENCE AFFIRMED;
MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED.

Annette Roach
Louisiana Appellate Project
Post Office Box 1747
Lake Charles, Louisiana 70602-1747
(337) 436-2900
Counsel for Defendant/Appellant:
Marvin L. Bunyard Jr.

Ronald K. Seastrunk
Assistant District Attorney,
Thirtieth Judicial District
Post Office Box 1188
Leesville, Louisiana 71496
(337) 239-2008
Counsel for Appellee:
State of Louisiana

FITZGERALD, Judge.

In this appeal, Marvin L. Bunyard Jr. (Defendant) appeals his conviction and

sentence for indecent behavior with a juvenile under the age of thirteen years old.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On March 31, 2013, Defendant engaged in anal and oral sexual intercourse with

the male juvenile victim, E.J., who was eight years old. 1 Defendant is the victim’s

step-grandfather. On October 15, 2019, Defendant was charged by bill of information

with indecent behavior with a juvenile under the age of thirteen years old, in violation

of La.R.S. 14:81(A)(1), and sexual battery of a juvenile, in violation of La.R.S.

14:43.1(A)(1)–(2).

On November 10, 2020, Defendant entered into a plea agreement in open court

whereby he pled guilty to the indecent-behavior charge in exchange for a sentencing

cap of twenty years and the dismissal of the sexual-battery charge. At the conclusion

of the plea hearing, the trial court ordered the preparation of a Presentence

Investigation.

The sentencing hearing was then held on February 23, 2021, at which time the

trial court sentenced Defendant to twenty years at hard labor, the first ten years

without benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence. The trial court also

recommended that Defendant be placed in an appropriate medical facility to care for

his medical conditions.

Thereafter, on March 2, 2021, Defendant filed a motion to reconsider his

sentence, which the trial court denied on March 3, 2021. This appeal followed.

LAW AND ANALYSIS

I. Errors Patent

Pursuant to La.Code Crim.P. art. 920, we find no errors patent on the face of

the record.

1
The juvenile victim is identified by his initials in accordance with La.R.S. 46:1844(W).
1

II. Anders Analysis

Defendant’s appeal counsel has filed a brief and motion to withdraw in

accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396 (1967). The

Louisiana Supreme Court differentiated an Anders brief from the typical appellate

brief in State v. Jyles, 96-2669 (La. 12/12/97), 704 So.2d 241. There, the supreme

court explained that “‘[u]nlike the typical advocate’s brief in a criminal appeal, which

has as its sole purpose the persuasion of the court to grant relief,’ the Anders brief

must ‘assure the court that the indigent defendant’s constitutional rights have not been

violated.’” Id. at 241 (quoting McCoy v. Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, 486 U.S. 429,

442, 108 S.Ct. 1895, 1903 (1988)).

The Anders brief here initially states that there are no non-frivolous issues on

which an appeal could be based. The brief notes that Defendant pled guilty pursuant

to a plea agreement with the State—in essence, Defendant pled guilty to the indecent-

behavior charge in exchange for a sentencing cap of twenty years and the dismissal of

the sexual-battery charge. The brief then correctly points out that Defendant is

precluded from seeking review of his sentence because it was imposed in conformity

with the plea agreement. La.Code Crim.P. art. 881.2(A)(2) (“The 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.”).

Defense counsel’s Anders brief also asserts that Defendant was represented by a

court-appointed attorney when he (Defendant) pled guilty in exchange for a

sentencing cap; that Defendant was properly advised of his constitutional rights prior

to pleading guilty; and that Defendant knowingly waived those rights prior to his

guilty plea. Thus, Defendant’s unconditional plea waived all claims for review,

including non-jurisdictional pre-plea defects. State v. Johnson, 19-2004 (La.

12/11/20), 314 So.3d 806.

2

The Anders brief submitted in this case assures us that Defendant’s

constitutional rights have not been violated. However, our review does not end here.

A proper Anders analysis also imposes requirements on our independent review

of the record. The fourth circuit addressed these requirements in State v. Benjamin,

573 So.2d 528, 531 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1990), explaining that

[t]his 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.

In sum, this court has performed a thorough review of the record, including the

bill of information, minute entries, pleadings, and transcripts. And our review has

revealed no issues that would support any assignment of error on appeal.

DISPOSITION

For the above reasons, Defendant’s conviction and sentence are affirmed; and

the motion to withdraw filed by Defendant’s appeal counsel is granted.

CONVICTION AND SENTENCE AFFIRMED;
MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED.

THIS OPINION IS NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION.
Rule 2-16.3 Uniform Rules, Court of Appeal.

3