State of Louisiana v. Jermaine Epps

STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

24-361

STATE OF LOUISIANA

VERSUS

JERMAINE EPPS

************

APPEAL FROM THE
ELEVENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF SABINE, NO. 79112
HONORABLE CRAIG O. MARCOTTE, DISTRICT JUDGE

************

SHANNON J. GREMILLION
JUDGE

************

Court composed of Shannon J. Gremillion, Jonathan W. Perry, and Ledricka J.
Thierry, Judges.

CONVICTION AND SENTENCE AFFIRMED.
MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED.

Annette Fuller Roach
Louisiana Appellate Project
P. O. Box 6547
Lake Charles, LA 70606-6547
(337) 436-2900
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT:
Jermaine Epps

D. Scott Kendrick
Attorney at Law
215 Williams Avenue
Natchitoches, LA 71457
(318) 354-9146
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT:
Jermaine Epps

Don M. Burkett
District Attorney, Eleventh Judicial District
Anna Louise Garcie
Assistant District Attorney
P. O. Box 1557
Many, LA 71449
(318) 256-6246
COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE:
State of Louisiana

GREMILLION, Judge.

On July 17, 2023, Defendant, Jermain Epps, entered a plea pursuant to North

Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 91 S.Ct. 160 (1970), to an amended charge of

second degree rape, a violation of La.R.S. 14:42.1. The trial court imposed an

agreed-upon sentence of twenty years at hard labor without the benefit of parole,

probation, or suspension of sentence. Defendant appealed, and this court remanded

the case for the trial court to conduct an evidentiary hearing to determine if a

sufficient factual basis existed for the guilty plea and whether Defendant’s plea was

knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered. The State and Defendant were

allowed the right to file supplemental briefs should either wish to raise issues arising

from the hearing. State v. Epps, 23-681 (La.App. 3 Cir. 3/13/24), 381 So.3d 1023.

The trial court hearing was held April 2, 2024. 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 her accompanying motion to withdraw. Defendant was given until September

12, 2024, to file a pro se brief and did not. For the following reasons, we affirm

Defendant’s conviction and sentence and grant appellate counsel’s motion to

withdraw.

FACTS

Defendant pled guilty to raping his stepdaughter, A.H., between 2016 and

2018.1

As this case involves rape, the victim’s initials have been used in accordance with La.R.S.
1

46:1844(W).
1

ANDERS ANALYSIS

Pursuant to Anders, 386 U.S. 738, Defendant’s appellate counsel filed a brief

stating she could find no non-frivolous issues upon which to base an appeal and

requesting this court grant her accompanying motion 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.

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 (quoting McCoy v. Court of Appeals of Wisconsin,

486 U.S. 429, 108 S.Ct. 1895 (1988)). 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.

Pursuant to Anders, 386 U.S. 738, and Jyles, 704 So.2d 241, Defendant’s

appellate counsel filed a brief outlining her assessment of the appellate record.

Appellate counsel discussed the procedural history and the facts of the case. She
2

noted that at the evidentiary hearing on remand, the trial court found there was a

sufficient factual basis for the plea. Although the trial court did not specifically

declare that Defendant knowingly and intelligently entered the Alford plea, she

contends that the trial court’s questions and Defendant’s responses indicated that the

plea was knowingly and intelligently made.

Pursuant to Anders, 386 U.S. 738, and Benjamin, 573 So.2d 528, we have

performed a thorough review of the record, including the minute entry and transcript

of the hearing on remand. Defendant was present and represented by counsel at the

evidentiary hearing. The factual basis provided by the State was as follows:

Law enforcement was contacted on July 18th of 2018, regarding a call
from Doris Holden stating that Jermaine Epps, her son-in-law, had
allegedly had sex with her 14-year-old granddaughter, who is now an
adult. But at that time would have been [sic] A. H., on numerous
occasions.

An interview was set up at Project Celebration and was
conducted by Joanna Pleasant, the forensic interviewer.

During that interview A. H. stated that Jermaine Epps had, had
sex with her on numerous occasions. And described sex as being
putting his penis in her vagina, at their home when they lived on Cherry
Street and another home that they lived in at Parkview, in apartment
147.

An investigation was done by law enforcement and it was
determined that, in fact, Jermaine Epps and his wife, the mother of
victim, A. H., had in fact lived on Cherry Street; had in fact lived on
Parkview apartment 147.

It was also learned through the course of the investigation that A.
H. had a mental disability.

She was sent for IQ testing, and it was determined that her score
fell within the range that she would be determined to have a -- she was
mentally not able to agree or consent. And he was subsequently indicted
on first -degree rape because of her mental infirmity.

Also, Your Honor, during the course of the trial it was learned
that while he was out on bond that A. H. had a sister, J. H., who some

3

year-and-a-half after Jermaine Epps was arrested went to her
grandmother’s house late at night - - excuse me, her great-
grandmother’s house late at night - - indicating that Jermaine Epps had
come into her room and lay down on the bed with her.

She woke up and he was behind her. She became afraid. She got
up, wanted to go to her great-grandmother’s house and on the way she
told law enforcement that he took the long way.

It was after midnight, and that as they were stopping or getting
close to her great grandmother’s house he put his hand on her leg and
she fled from the vehicle. Law enforcement was called that night.

Judge Bolin ruled in this matter that, that would be other acts
under 412.2, that if this matter went to trial, that testimony could come
in.

Thereafter, this matter was fixed for trial and Jermaine Epps
entered a plea of guilty, Your Honor.

Defense counsel agreed that this was an accurate recitation of the facts

disclosed in discovery and indicated that the reason Defendant entered an Alford plea

was to avoid a life sentence if convicted. Through questioning and confirmation

from defense counsel, the trial court concluded Defendant was aware of the facts to

be presented at trial which served as the basis of his plea. Defense counsel confirmed

that he and Defendant met numerous times, that Defendant was aware of the facts,

and Defendant knew other acts and evidence would be presented at trial which could

result in his conviction and life imprisonment. According to defense counsel, after

considering these circumstances and weighing the risks, Defendant agreed to enter

the plea. This information was subsequently confirmed through the trial court’s

questioning of Defendant. Defendant acknowledged that because of the substantial

likelihood that he could be convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment, he entered

the Alford plea. He confirmed that his plea was knowingly and intelligently entered

because he felt it was the best option offered to him.

4

Finding no issues supporting an assignment of error on appeal, we affirm

Defendant’s conviction and sentence, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

CONVICTION AND SENTENCE AFFIRMED.
MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED.

5