State of Louisiana v. Charles Dewayne Williams

• Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
• Decided: July 16, 2025
• Docket: 56,352-KA
• Status: Published

Opinion

Judgment rendered July 16, 2025. Application for rehearing may be filed within the delay allowed by Art. 922, La. C. Cr. P.

No. 56,352-KA

COURT OF APPEAL SECOND CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA

*****

STATE OF LOUISIANA Appellee

versus

CHARLES DEWAYNE Appellant WILLIAMS

Appealed from the First Judicial District Court for the Parish of Caddo, Louisiana Trial Court No. 371,574

Honorable John D. Mosely, Jr., Judge

LOUISIANA APPELLATE PROJECT Counsel for Appellant By: Sherry Watters

JAMES EDWARD STEWART, SR. Counsel for Appellee District Attorney

REBECCA ARMAND EDWARDS CHEYENNE YVETTE WILSON Assistant District Attorneys

Before PITMAN, ROBINSON, and ELLENDER, JJ. ROBINSON, J.

Charles Dewayne Williams (“Williams”) was charged with two

counts of aggravated second degree battery in violation of La. R.S. 14:34.7

on January 2, 2020. He pled not guilty at arraignment on January 27, 2020;

however, on July 24, 2023, Williams withdrew his not guilty plea and pled

guilty to the first count of aggravated battery and the State dismissed the

second count. The court imposed the agreed-upon sentence of seven years at

hard labor to be served concurrently with a three-year sentence in another

case, with credit for time served. Williams filed a motion for appeal on the

grounds that his two writs of habeas corpus and one writ of mandamus from

2021 and 2022 had not been addressed by the court, and the court granted

the appeal on October 1, 2024.

Williams’ appellate counsel filed a motion to withdraw on March 14,

2025, along with an error patent brief. No other appellate brief was filed by

or on behalf of Williams.

For the following reasons, we grant the motion to withdraw and affirm

Williams’ guilty plea and sentence.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On June 9, 2019, Shreveport Police Department (“SPD”) was

contacted regarding a shooting on Tinker Street with two victims, Brad

Stephens (“Stephens”) and Santanion Dixon (“Dixon”), suffering non-life

threatening gunshot wounds. According to multiple police interviews with

witnesses of the incident, Dixon had been at a residence located at 6301

Tinker Street with a group of people and was leaving, when he drove in the

wrong direction down Pixley Drive, not remembering it was a dead end.

Dixon turned around in a driveway and while driving away, he noticed a man who was spinning his tires had exited his vehicle and was staring at

Dixon. Dixon returned to the residence to tell the group about the man’s

behavior and shortly after, the man drove up to the residence and yelled,

“That’s my street, that’s my block!” and exchanged words with Stephens.

Stephens responded, “Charles, ain’t nobody with that dumb shit. Go on with

that.” The man spun his tires again, drove back by the house, parked at a

residence on Pixley, and began walking toward the group of people, then lay

down around the Pixley-Tinker intersection and began shooting at them.

After firing several shots, the man ran down Pixley and fired more shots.

There was some return fire, but there were conflicting statements as to

whether it was by Stephens or another person. Stephens was shot in his left

middle finger and right hand near the middle finger. Dixon was shot in the

ankle. Police recovered multiple 40-caliber shell casings located at the

intersection of Tinker and Pixley, in front of the Pixley residence in which

the group was located, as well as another road parallel to Pixley that also

intersected Tinker. Several vehicles received damage from gunfire.

Multiple witnesses referred to the perpetrator as “Charles” during

initial interviews, but no additional information was provided to or obtained

by police as to his identification until over three months later when SPD was

contacted by a witness identifying the perpetrator as Charles Williams.

Williams was identified in a six-person lineup by the witness four days later.

Williams was arrested on November 1, 2019, and charged by bill of

information on January 2, 2020, with two counts of aggravated second

degree battery in violation of La. R.S. 14:34.7. A preliminary hearing was

held on January 27, 2020, in which evidence was adduced, closed, and

submitted. The court ruled the State had shown probable cause. Counsel for 2 Williams made and argued an oral motion for bond reduction, which was

denied. Williams waived arraignment and pled not guilty to the charges.

After withdrawal by Williams’ private counsel, public defense

counsel was appointed on September 9, 2021. There were multiple changes

in representation and continuances filed. During a period of over three

years, while he was represented by counsel, Williams filed approximately 18

pro se pleadings and wrote three letters to the court. Among the numerous

pro se pleadings filed by Williams were two applications for writ of habeas

corpus, filed November 2, 2021, and March 14, 2023. The court denied the

March 14 application on April 18, 2023.

On July 24, 2023, Williams withdrew his not guilty plea and pled

guilty to the first count of aggravated battery. The State dismissed the

second count. During the hearing, after the plea agreement was discussed,

the court addressed Williams directly, asked background questions regarding

his age and education, and questioned whether he understood the nature of

the charges and proceedings, whether he had discussed the plea with his

attorney, whether he understood his right against self-incrimination was

waived, whether he understood that the possible penalty for the charge was

up to 15 years at hard labor and a fine of up to $10,000, and whether the plea

was freely and voluntarily made. Williams answered affirmatively to all.

The State then read the first count as the statement of facts:

On or about June 9th of 2019, in the Parish of Caddo, Charles Dewayne Williams committed the offense of R.S. 14:34.7, aggravated second degree battery, in that he did commit a battery with a dangerous weapon, a firearm, intentionally inflicting serious bodily injury upon the person of Brad Stevens [sic] without his consent, which is contrary to the laws of the State of Louisiana and against the peace and dignity of the same.

3 When asked if the statement was true, Williams replied, “Yes, Sir.” The

court found there was a factual basis for the guilty plea, that the plea was

freely and voluntarily made, and that Williams understood the nature of the

charges and the proceedings against him. The court accepted and imposed

the agreed-upon sentence of seven years at hard labor to be served

concurrently with the three-year sentence in another case, with credit for

time served. In addition, Williams executed a felony plea form the same day

as the plea hearing in which he reiterated all of the above affirmations.

Williams filed a motion for appeal on September 27, 2024, on the

grounds that his two writs of habeas corpus and one writ of mandamus from

2021 and 2022 had not been addressed by the court and requested that he be

referred to the Louisiana Appellate Project for appointment of appellate

counsel. The trial court granted the appeal on October 1, 2024.

Sherry Watters (“Watters”) was appointed as appellate counsel for

Williams. Watters filed a motion to withdraw on March 14, 2025, along

with an error patent brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S.

738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967); State v. Jyles, 96-2669 (La.

12/12/97), 704 So. 2d 241; and State v. Benjamin, 573 So. 2d 528 (La. App.

4 Cir. 1990). Watters stated that upon detailed review of the record, no

nonfrivolous issues could be advanced for appellate review. She noted that,

contrary to Williams’ motion for appeal, there was actually a ruling on

Williams’ writ of habeas corpus filed March 14, 2023, and no writ of

mandamus was ever filed in the record. An order was entered and filed by

this Court on April 15, 2025, notifying Williams that he may file a brief in

this appeal within 30 days. No brief was filed.

4 DISCUSSION

Error patent

La. C. Cr. P. art. 556.1(A)(1) provides that, prior to accepting a guilty

plea, the court must personally inform the defendant of the nature of the

charge to which the plea is offered, any mandatory minimum penalty, and

the maximum possible penalty. An advisement of the agreed-upon sentence

is sufficient for compliance with La. C. Cr. P. art. 556.1. State v. Vaughn,

18-51 (La. App. 5 Cir. 5/16/18), 248 So. 3d 578; State v. Nicholas, 16-16

(La. App. 5 Cir. 6/30/16), 196 So. 3d 864.

Although the court itself did not clearly advise Williams of the

agreed-upon sentence prior to the guilty plea colloquy and accepting the

guilty plea, he did state the terms of the agreed-upon sentence immediately

thereafter, and the terms were also openly discussed by Williams and his

counsel during the hearing. More importantly, the court did specifically

inform Williams of the sentencing range prior to acceptance of the plea, in

compliance with La. C. Cr. P. art. 556.1(A)(1). Furthermore, Williams

executed a felony plea form in conjunction with the hearing in which he

stated he understood the sentencing range as well as the agreed-upon

sentence. This Court does not find there to be any error by the trial court in

its application of La. C. Cr. P. art. 556.1. In the event the failure to

specifically inform the defendant of the agreed-upon sentencing terms prior

to acceptance of the guilty plea was in error, it is considered harmless and

does not rise to the level of a violation of the Boykin requirements. La. C.

Cr. P. art. 556.1(E); Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 89 S. Ct. 1709, 23 L.

Ed. 2d 274 (1969); State ex rel. Jackson v. Henderson, 260 La. 90, 255 So.

5 2d 85 (1971); State ex rel. LeBlanc v. Henderson, 261 La. 315, 259 So. 2d

557 (1972).

Motion to Withdraw

Williams’ motion for appeal is based on the grounds that his

applications for writ of habeas corpus and writ of mandamus were not heard.

The court ruled on Williams’ writ of habeas corpus filed March 14, 2023,

and no writ of mandamus was ever actually filed in the record. Further,

Williams waived his right to a review of those referenced pleadings upon

entering his guilty plea. A defendant will waive his right to review of

nonjurisdictional pretrial rulings unless, at the time he enters a plea of guilty,

he expressly stipulates that he does not waive his right to review of the

rulings. State v. Crosby, 338 So. 2d 584 (La. 1976).

In addition, our review of this record reveals no nonfrivolous issues

for appeal. There is a sufficient factual basis supporting Williams’ guilty

plea. He also benefited from the plea by the removal of one of two counts of

second degree aggravated battery, each carrying a sentence of up to 15

years. Williams received only a 7-year sentence that runs concurrent with

another 3-year sentence on a separate matter, significantly less than the

maximum sentence.

Watters submits a motion to withdraw and appellate brief pursuant to

Anders, supra, claiming there are no nonfrivolous issues that can be

advanced on appeal. The brief filed by counsel must review not only the

procedural history of the case and the evidence presented but must also

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.

Jyles, supra; State v. Mouton, 653 So. 2d 1176 (La. 1995); Benjamin, supra. 6 Watters claims in her brief that she made a detailed review of the

procedural history of the case, the minutes, the pleadings, the bill of

information, and all transcripts contained in the record, particularly where

the defendant entered a plea of guilty and received an agreed-upon sentence;

as a result, she found no nonfrivolous issues that can be advanced for

appellate review. She submits that she has diligently reviewed the appellate

record, and two confidential letters were sent to Williams addressing issues

specific to this case, the law on those issues, and the reasons counsel did not

assign them as error. As to issues that were considered and the reasons she

declined to assign them as appealable error, Watters claims that it would be

a violation of her ethical duty to her client to reveal to the court her

reasoning as to declining certain assignments of error in the event Williams

wishes to pursue them in a pro se brief, and the filing of an error patent brief

does not waive the attorney-client privilege.

This Court finds that Watters’ motion and brief sufficiently

demonstrate by full discussion and analysis that she has cast an advocate’s

eye over the trial record and considered 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, supra.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated hereinabove, Watters’ motion to withdraw is

granted, and Williams’ guilty plea and sentence are affirmed.

AFFIRMED.