State of Louisiana v. Chaz Michael Maturin

• Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
• Decided: April 26, 2023
• Docket: KA-0022-0826
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

22-826

STATE OF LOUISIANA

VERSUS

CHAZ MICHAEL MATURIN

**********

APPEAL FROM THE SIXTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF IBERIA, NO. 20-183 HONORABLE CURTIS SIGUR, DISTRICT JUDGE

CHARLES G. FITZGERALD JUDGE

Court composed of Elizabeth A. Pickett, Sharon Darville Wilson, and Charles G. Fitzgerald, Judges.

CONVICTIONS AND SENTENCES AFFIRMED; MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED. Edward K. Bauman Louisiana Apellate Project Post Office Box 1641 Lake Charles, Louisiana 70602-1641 (337) 491-0570 Counsel for Defendant/Appellant: Chaz Michael Maturin

M. BoFill Duhé District Attorney Sixteenth Judicial District M. Craig Colwart Assistant District Attorney 300 Iberia Street, Suite 200 New Iberia, Louisiana 70560 (337) 365-4006 Counsel for Appellee: State of Louisiana FITZGERALD, Judge.

In this appeal, Chaz Michael Maturin (Defendant) seeks review of his

convictions and sentences for pornography involving juveniles under the age of

seventeen and sexual abuse of an animal.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

In March 2020, Defendant was charged by bill of information with twenty

counts of pornography involving juveniles under the age of thirteen in violation of

La.R.S. 14:81.1(A)(1) and twenty counts of sexual abuse of an animal in violation

of La.R.S. 14:89.3(A)(7).

Defendant initially pled not guilty to the charges, but ultimately entered into

a plea agreement in open court. Defendant specifically pled no contest to one

amended count of pornography involving juveniles under the age of seventeen and

one count of sexual abuse of an animal. Pursuant to the agreement, the State

dismissed the remaining charges and agreed not to file a multi-bill against

Defendant.

After Defendant waived the sentencing delays, the trial court sentenced

Defendant to six years at hard labor for pornography involving juveniles and four

years at hard labor for sexual abuse of an animal. The sentences were ordered to be

served concurrently. This appeal followed.

LAW AND ANALYSIS

I. Errors Patent

In accordance with 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. Ct. of Appeals of Wis., Dist. 1, 486

U.S. 429, 439, 108 S.Ct. 1895, 1902 (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 no contest

pursuant to a plea agreement with the State. “A plea of nolo contendere is equivalent

to an admission of guilt and is treated as a guilty plea.” State v. Gordon, 04-633, p.

9 (La.App. 1 Cir. 10/29/04), 896 So.2d 1053, 1061, writ denied, 04-3144 (La. 4/1/05),

897 So.2d 600. According to the brief, Defendant pled no contest in exchange for a

sentencing cap—six years at hard labor for pornography involving juveniles and four

years at hard labor for sexual abuse of an animal—and the dismissal of the other

charges. The brief then correctly points out that Defendant is now precluded from

seeking review of his sentences because they were 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 acknowledges that Defendant was

represented by a court-appointed attorney at the time of the plea agreement, that

2 Defendant was properly advised of his constitutional rights prior to pleading no

contest, and that Defendant knowingly waived those rights prior to his 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.

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 imposes specific 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 as follows:

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.

With this in mind, we have 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 convictions and sentences are affirmed;

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

CONVICTIONS AND SENTENCES AFFIRMED; MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED.

THIS OPINION IS NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. Uniform Rules—Courts of Appeal, Rule 2–16.3.