State of Louisiana v. Rolando Anthony Massingill

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

21-220

STATE OF LOUISIANA

VERSUS

ROLANDO ANTHONY MASSINGILL

**********

APPEAL FROM THE
FOURTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF CALCASIEU, NO. 17932-17
HONORABLE SHARON D. WILSON, DISTRICT JUDGE

**********

CANDYCE G. PERRET
JUDGE

**********

Court composed of D. Kent Savoie, Candyce G. Perret, and Charles G. Fitzgerald,
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:
Rolando Anthony Massingill

Stephen C. Dwight
District Attorney
David S. Pipes
Assistant District Attorney
901 Lakeshore Drive, Suite 800
Lake Charles, LA 70601
(337) 437-3400
COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE:
State of Louisiana

PERRET, Judge.

In this criminal proceeding, counsel for Defendant, Rolando Anthony

Massingill, filed a brief alleging there are no non-frivolous issues to be raised on

appeal and a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. For the following reasons,

we affirm Defendant’s conviction and sentence and grant appellate counsel’s motion

to withdraw.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY:

On September 28, 2017, Defendant was charged by grand jury indictment

with the second-degree murder of Wayne Keith Reynaud, in violation of La.R.S.

14:30.1. On August 29, 2019, Defendant entered a guilty plea to the amended charge

of manslaughter, in violation of La.R.S. 14:31.

The State gave the following factual basis for manslaughter:

Your Honor, as it relates to the charge of Manslaughter under
No. 17932-17, on August the 9th of 2017, Rolando Massingill caused
the death of Wayne Keith Reynaud. This took place in Calcasieu
Parish.

Specifically, Mr. Reynaud was killed by being beaten to death by
Mr. Rolando Massingill in his home. This all occurred in the confines
of Calcasieu Parish as it relates to one count of Manslaughter, Judge.
Again, that occurring August the 9th, 2017 or approximately on that
date. Mr. Reynaud was found a couple of days later but all of the
information we have points to August the 9th of ’17 as being the offense
date there.

Defendant’s written plea agreement stated defense counsel and the State

would jointly recommend thirty years at hard labor, consecutive to an unrelated

battery of a correctional facility employee to which Defendant was also pleading

guilty.

On September 9, 2019, the trial court accepted the joint recommendation of

one year on the unrelated battery charge, rejected the recommendation of thirty years

and sentenced Defendant to thirty-five years at hard labor to run consecutively, and

ordered that the one-year sentence be served first. Defense counsel entered a general

objection to the sentence.

On September 25, 2019, Defendant filed a “Motion to Reconsider Sentence,”

contending generally that the thirty-five-year sentence for manslaughter was

constitutionally excessive “under the circumstances.” The trial court denied the

motion the same day. Defendant’s motion for appeal was also submitted and granted

the same day.

Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S.

738, 87 S.Ct. 1396 (1967), alleging no non-frivolous issues exist on which to base

an appeal and seeking to withdraw as Defendant’s counsel.

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:

In State v. Benjamin, 573 So.2d 528, 531 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1990), the fourth

circuit explained the analysis based on Anders, 386 U.S. 738:

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

2

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.

While it is not necessary for Defendant’s counsel to “catalog tediously every

meritless objection made at trial or by way of pre-trial motions with a labored

explanation of why the objections all lack merit[,]” counsel’s Anders brief must

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

violated.’” State v. Jyles, 96-2669, p. 2 (La. 12/12/97), 704 So.2d 241, 241 (citing

Jones v. Barnes, 463 U.S. 745, 103 S.Ct. 3308 (1983); quoting McCoy v. Court of

Appeals of Wisconsin, 486 U.S. 429, 108 S.Ct. 1895 (1988)). Counsel must fully

discuss and analyze the trial record and consider “whether any ruling made by the

trial court, subject to the contemporaneous objection rule, had a significant, adverse

impact on shaping the evidence presented to the jury for its consideration.” Jyles,

704 So.2d at 241 (citing United States v. Pippen, 115 F.3d 422, 426 (7th Cir.1997)).

Thus, counsel’s Anders brief must review the procedural history and the evidence

presented at trial and 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.

Counsel correctly notes that by pleading guilty, Defendant waived all non-

jurisdictional defects. See State v. Myles, 04-264 (La.App. 3 Cir. 9/29/04), 882

So.2d 1254. Although the record does not include an amended bill charging

Defendant with manslaughter, counsel correctly notes that a defendant may plead

guilty to a lesser included offense without amendment under La.Code Crim.P. art.

558. Furthermore, this court has previously held:

A defendant, with the consent of the district attorney, may plead
guilty to a lesser offense that is included in the offense charged in the

3

indictment. La.C.Cr.P. Art. 558. The lesser included offense must be
of the same generic class and must not require proof of an element
which is not found in the major crime charged. Official Revision
Comment to La.C.Cr.P. Art. 558; State v. Green, 263 La. 837, 269
So.2d 460 (La.1972). In such instances[,] amendment of the indictment
or the filing of a new information charging the lesser included offense
is not required.

State v. Price, 461 So.2d 503, 505 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1984), abrogated on other

grounds by State v. Jackson, 04-2863 (La. 11/29/05), 916 So.2d 1015.

Finally, counsel notes that Defendant’s plea agreement only included a joint

recommendation as to sentencing, there was no agreed upon sentence and the trial

court informed Defendant it was not bound to accept the recommendation prior to

accepting Defendant’s plea. In State v. Guilbeau, 10-511 (La.App. 3 Cir. 12/8/10),

52 So.3d 310, writ denied, 11-89 (La. 5/20/11), 63 So.3d 973, this court upheld a

ten-year hard labor sentence for a defendant who pled guilty with a joint

recommendation of five years at hard labor, finding the trial court was not bound to

accept the joint recommendation and noting the defendant was expressly informed

that he was facing a sentencing range of five-to-thirty years at hard labor prior to his

guilty plea. Accordingly, because the thirty-five year sentence Defendant received

is within the legal sentencing range for manslaughter and Defendant benefitted from

pleading guilty to manslaughter rather than receive a mandatory life sentence for a

second degree murder conviction, counsel suggests there “does not appear to be a

valid claim of sentence excessiveness.” This court agrees with counsel in light of

the record in the instant case and the benefit of pleading to a lesser sentence that

carries a possibility of parole.

Pursuant to Anders and Benjamin, we have performed a thorough review of

the record, including pleadings, minute entries, the charging instrument, and the

transcripts. Our review has revealed no issues that would support an assignment of

4

error on appeal. Therefore, we affirm Defendant’s conviction and sentence and grant

appellate counsel’s motion to withdraw.

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