State of Louisiana v. Brandon Jerome Jefferson

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

23-342

STATE OF LOUISIANA

VERSUS

BRANDON JEROME JEFFERSON

**********

APPEAL FROM THE
FOURTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF CALCASIEU, NO. 24307-19
HONORABLE DERRICK D. KEE, DISTRICT JUDGE

**********

CHARLES G. FITZGERALD
JUDGE

**********

Court composed of Elizabeth A. Pickett, Shannon J. Gremillion, and Charles G.
Fitzgerald, Judges.

CONVICTION AND SENTENCE AFFIRMED;
MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED.

G. Paul Marx
Louisiana Appellate Project
Post Office Box 82389
Lafayette, Louisiana 70598
(337) 237-2537
Counsel for Defendant/Appellant:
Brandon Jerome Jefferson

Stephen C. Dwight
District Attorney
John Eric Turner
Assistant District Attorney
14th Judicial District
901 Lakeshore Drive, Suite 800
Lake Charles, Louisiana 70601
(337) 437-3400
Counsel for Appellee:
State of Louisiana

FITZGERALD, Judge.

In this appeal, Brandon Jerome Jefferson (Defendant) appeals his conviction

and sentence for manslaughter.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On November 14, 2019, Defendant was charged by indictment with second

degree murder in violation of La.R.S. 14:30.1. Thereafter, on December 16, 2021,

an amended indictment charged Defendant with first degree murder in violation of

La.R.S. 14:30. Four months later, on March 7, 2022, the indictment was orally

amended to charge Defendant with manslaughter in violation of La.R.S. 14:31.

Defendant then entered a plea of guilty to that charge.

On May 4, 2022, Defendant was sentenced to serve thirty-eight years at hard

labor. Defendant, in turn, filed a pro se Motion to Reconsider Sentence. The motion

was denied by the trial court at a hearing on January 19, 2023. 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.

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 was charged with

first degree murder, which is punishable by life imprisonment, and entered an open-

ended plea of guilty to the reduced charge of manslaughter. In essence, Defendant

pled guilty to the reduced charge of manslaughter in exchange for a sentencing cap

of forty years and the dismissal of the first degree murder charge.

Defense counsel’s Anders brief indicates that the trial court properly

Boykinized Defendant, and Defendant agreed with the factual basis presented by the

State. 1 The brief notes that a sentencing hearing was subsequently held, and the trial

court gave extensive reasons for the sentence imposed.

Defense counsel’s Anders brief then addresses Defendant’s pro se Motion to

Reconsider Sentence. In that motion, Defendant alleged that his trial counsel gave

misleading information by advising him that a sentence of less than thirty-eight years

would be imposed. At the hearing on the motion, the trial court determined that this

was a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel which was not properly before it. In

like manner, the Anders brief suggests that this claim is not subject to review on

appeal because the evidence necessary to decide the issue is not in the record.

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

1
In Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 89 S.Ct. 1709 (1969), the Supreme Court emphasized
three federal constitutional rights which are waived by a guilty plea: the privilege against self-
incrimination; the right to trial by jury; and the right to confront one’s accusers. The purpose of
the Boykin rule is to ensure that the defendant had adequate information to plead guilty intelligently
and voluntarily.

2

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

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

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.

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. Defendant was properly charged in an

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

proceedings. He 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. State v. Crosby, 338

So.2d 584 (La.1976); State v. Aguilar, 14-714 (La.App. 5 Cir. 1/14/15), 167 So.3d

862. The sentence for manslaughter, moreover, was legal.

The State suggests that the sentence is not reviewable because it was imposed

in conformity with the plea agreement. That argument is incorrect because

Defendant entered an open-ended plea. State v. Pickens, 98-1443 (La.App. 3 Cir.

4/28/99), 741 So.2d 696, writ denied, 99-1577 (La. 11/5/99), 751 So.2d 232, and 01-

2178 (La. 4/19/02), 813 So.2d 1081. Nevertheless, an argument for excessive

sentence on this conviction is unnecessary considering that Defendant was subject

3

to a mandatory life sentence prior to the entry of his plea. La.R.S. 14:30; La.R.S.

14:31; cf. State v. Massingill, 21-220 (La.App. 3 Cir. 12/8/21) (unpublished opinion).

As to the claims raised in the Motion to Reconsider Sentence:

Generally, a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is
appropriate for post-conviction review, not appeal. State v. Bright, 98-
398 (La. 4/11/00); 776 So.2d 1134. If relegated to post-conviction
proceedings, the trial court is in a position to conduct a full evidentiary
hearing. State v. Guillory, 00-386 (La.App. 3 Cir. 11/2/00); 773 So.2d
794. This type of claim may be reviewed on appeal, however, if the
evidence necessary to decide the issue is present in the record. Id.

State v. Antoine, 01-1036, p. 7 (La.App. 3 Cir. 12/26/01), 804 So.2d 869, 875.

In the case before us, there is no evidence in the record to support a claim of

ineffective assistance of counsel. That claim is therefore not reviewable in this

appeal.

In sum, we have found no issues which would support an 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.
Uniform Rules—Courts of Appeal, Rule 2–16.3.

4