NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT
19-262
STATE OF LOUISIANA
VERSUS
JAMES RAY COLEMAN
**********
APPEAL FROM THE THIRTIETH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF VERNON, NO. 92278 HONORABLE TONY ALAN BENNETT, DISTRICT JUDGE
**********
ULYSSES GENE THIBODEAUX CHIEF JUDGE
**********
Court composed of Ulysses Gene Thibodeaux, Chief Judge, Phyllis M. Keaty, and D. Kent Savoie, Judges.
CONVICTION AND SENTENCE AFFIRMED. MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED.
Asa Allen Skinner District Attorney – Thirtieth Judicial District Ronald K. Seastrunk Assistant District Attorney – Thirtieth Judicial District P. O. Box 1188 Leesville, LA 71496-1188 Telephone: (337) 239-2008 COUNSEL FOR: Plaintiff/Appellee – State of Louisiana Chad M. Ikerd Louisiana Appellate Project P. O. Box 2125 Lafayette, LA 70502 Telephone: (225) 806-2930 COUNSEL FOR: Defendant/Appellant – James Ray Coleman
James Ray Coleman, Pro Se Dixon Corr. Inst. Unit 1-D-5 P. O. Box 788 Jackson, LA 70748 Defendant/Appellant THIBODEAUX, Chief Judge.
Defendant, James Ray Coleman, was charged with two counts of
simple burglary, violations of La.R.S. 14:62; two counts of theft of items valued in
excess of $1,000 but less than $5,000, violations of La.R.S. 14:67(B)(3); theft of a
motor vehicle, a violation of La.R.S. 14:67.26; and simple criminal damage to
property, a violation of La.R.S. 14:56.1 All of the offenses occurred on November
2, 2017. Defendant originally entered a plea of not guilty, but he changed his plea
to guilty of two counts of simple burglary, violations of La.R.S. 14:62, and theft of
items valued in excess of $1,000 but less than $5,000, a violation of La.R.S.
14:67(B)(3). The State dismissed the remaining charges and agreed not to charge
Defendant as a habitual offender.
The trial court sentenced Defendant to serve ten years at hard labor with
credit for time served on each of the two counts of simple burglary and three years
at hard labor with credit for time served on the count of theft. The sentences ran
consecutively for a total of thirty years at hard labor with credit for time served. The
trial court denied Defendant’s motion to reconsider his sentence. Defendant timely
appealed.
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. We affirm
Defendant’s convictions and sentences and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.
1 The bill of information incorrectly identifies the offense as theft of items valued at more than $1,000.00 but less than $5,000, a violation of La.R.S. 14:67(B)(2). The correct citation for that offense is La.R.S. 14:67(B)(3). FACTS:
Defendant committed simple burglary on November 2, 2017, when he
entered the Department of Transportation and Development building and the Vernon
Parish Police Jury building in Leesville without authorization. He took items from
those buildings valued at more than $1,000 but less than $5,000. Defendant also
took a truck from the Police Jury building and rammed it through a fence.
ERRORS PATENT:
In accordance with La.Code Crim.P. art. 920, we review all appeals for
errors patent on the face of the record. After reviewing the record, we find 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 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.
2 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) and McCoy v. Court of Appeals
of Wisconsin, 486 U.S. 429, 108 S.Ct. 1895 (1988)). Counsel’s Anders brief must
review the procedural history and the evidence in the record 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.
Pursuant to Anders, 386 U.S. 738, and Jyles, 704 So.2d 241,
Defendant’s appellate counsel filed a brief citing what he perceived as potential
errors for appeal. First, he noted Defendant pled without an agreement about
sentencing. Three of the six counts against Defendant were dismissed, and the State
agreed not to file a habitual offender bill. The trial court considered Defendant’s
lengthy criminal history and other factors of La.Code Crim.P. art. 894.1 as well as
Defendant’s prior parole and probation revocations and criminal record in Texas.
Counsel noted the trial court imposed all the sentences to run
consecutively to each other and to any other sentences. He considered the length of
the sentences imposed and noted Defendant did not receive the maximum sentence
in any of the convictions despite his lengthy criminal record and despite being a sixth
felony offender. As part of the plea agreement, Defendant recommended concurrent
sentences to the trial court, and the State had no opposition. Although Defendant’s
crimes could have been considered part of a single transaction or common scheme
3 so that the sentences would be imposed to run concurrently, counsel noted La.Code
Crim.P. art. 883 allows the trial court to expressly direct the sentences to run
consecutively, as it did here. Counsel concluded the trial court did not abuse its
discretion in imposing Defendant’s sentences.
Pursuant to Anders and Benjamin, we have performed a thorough
review of the record, including pleadings, minute entries, the charging instrument,
and the transcripts and have confirmed the statements by counsel.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT
19-262
STATE OF LOUISIANA
VERSUS
JAMES RAY COLEMAN
**********
APPEAL FROM THE THIRTIETH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF VERNON, NO. 92278 HONORABLE TONY ALAN BENNETT, DISTRICT JUDGE
**********
ULYSSES GENE THIBODEAUX CHIEF JUDGE
**********
Court composed of Ulysses Gene Thibodeaux, Chief Judge, Phyllis M. Keaty, and D. Kent Savoie, Judges.
CONVICTION AND SENTENCE AFFIRMED. MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED.
Asa Allen Skinner District Attorney – Thirtieth Judicial District Ronald K. Seastrunk Assistant District Attorney – Thirtieth Judicial District P. O. Box 1188 Leesville, LA 71496-1188 Telephone: (337) 239-2008 COUNSEL FOR: Plaintiff/Appellee – State of Louisiana Chad M. Ikerd Louisiana Appellate Project P. O. Box 2125 Lafayette, LA 70502 Telephone: (225) 806-2930 COUNSEL FOR: Defendant/Appellant – James Ray Coleman
James Ray Coleman, Pro Se Dixon Corr. Inst. Unit 1-D-5 P. O. Box 788 Jackson, LA 70748 Defendant/Appellant THIBODEAUX, Chief Judge.
Defendant, James Ray Coleman, was charged with two counts of
simple burglary, violations of La.R.S. 14:62; two counts of theft of items valued in
excess of $1,000 but less than $5,000, violations of La.R.S. 14:67(B)(3); theft of a
motor vehicle, a violation of La.R.S. 14:67.26; and simple criminal damage to
property, a violation of La.R.S. 14:56.1 All of the offenses occurred on November
2, 2017. Defendant originally entered a plea of not guilty, but he changed his plea
to guilty of two counts of simple burglary, violations of La.R.S. 14:62, and theft of
items valued in excess of $1,000 but less than $5,000, a violation of La.R.S.
14:67(B)(3). The State dismissed the remaining charges and agreed not to charge
Defendant as a habitual offender.
The trial court sentenced Defendant to serve ten years at hard labor with
credit for time served on each of the two counts of simple burglary and three years
at hard labor with credit for time served on the count of theft. The sentences ran
consecutively for a total of thirty years at hard labor with credit for time served. The
trial court denied Defendant’s motion to reconsider his sentence. Defendant timely
appealed.
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. We affirm
Defendant’s convictions and sentences and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.
1 The bill of information incorrectly identifies the offense as theft of items valued at more than $1,000.00 but less than $5,000, a violation of La.R.S. 14:67(B)(2). The correct citation for that offense is La.R.S. 14:67(B)(3). FACTS:
Defendant committed simple burglary on November 2, 2017, when he
entered the Department of Transportation and Development building and the Vernon
Parish Police Jury building in Leesville without authorization. He took items from
those buildings valued at more than $1,000 but less than $5,000. Defendant also
took a truck from the Police Jury building and rammed it through a fence.
ERRORS PATENT:
In accordance with La.Code Crim.P. art. 920, we review all appeals for
errors patent on the face of the record. After reviewing the record, we find 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 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.
2 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) and McCoy v. Court of Appeals
of Wisconsin, 486 U.S. 429, 108 S.Ct. 1895 (1988)). Counsel’s Anders brief must
review the procedural history and the evidence in the record 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.
Pursuant to Anders, 386 U.S. 738, and Jyles, 704 So.2d 241,
Defendant’s appellate counsel filed a brief citing what he perceived as potential
errors for appeal. First, he noted Defendant pled without an agreement about
sentencing. Three of the six counts against Defendant were dismissed, and the State
agreed not to file a habitual offender bill. The trial court considered Defendant’s
lengthy criminal history and other factors of La.Code Crim.P. art. 894.1 as well as
Defendant’s prior parole and probation revocations and criminal record in Texas.
Counsel noted the trial court imposed all the sentences to run
consecutively to each other and to any other sentences. He considered the length of
the sentences imposed and noted Defendant did not receive the maximum sentence
in any of the convictions despite his lengthy criminal record and despite being a sixth
felony offender. As part of the plea agreement, Defendant recommended concurrent
sentences to the trial court, and the State had no opposition. Although Defendant’s
crimes could have been considered part of a single transaction or common scheme
3 so that the sentences would be imposed to run concurrently, counsel noted La.Code
Crim.P. art. 883 allows the trial court to expressly direct the sentences to run
consecutively, as it did here. Counsel concluded the trial court did not abuse its
discretion in imposing Defendant’s sentences.
Pursuant to Anders and Benjamin, we have performed a thorough
review of the record, including pleadings, minute entries, the charging instrument,
and the transcripts and have confirmed the statements by counsel. Defendant was
present and represented by counsel at all crucial stages of the proceedings, and he
acknowledged his guilty plea on the plea form. The trial court correctly informed
Defendant of his Boykin rights and discussed the possible sentences for his crimes
at the plea hearing. Although the defense recommended the sentences to run
concurrently and the State agreed, Defendant also agreed the sentences were “up to
Judge.”
In exchange for the plea, the State agreed to dismiss one count of theft
of items valued in excess of $1,000 but less than $5,000, the charge of theft of a
motor vehicle, and the charge of simple criminal damage to property. The State
further agreed not to charge Defendant as a habitual offender as a result of the plea.
The trial judge considered the sentencing guidelines of La.Code
Crim.P. art. 894.1 and a presentence investigation report. He also noted Defendant’s
extensive criminal record. Defendant was previously convicted of vehicle theft in
1984; two counts of burglary of a building in 1988; burglary of a building in 1989;
felony use of a motor vehicle, felony fraudulent use or possession of identifying
information, and misdemeanors in 2012; and assault on a family or household
member in 2014. Additionally, Defendant was charged with aggravated assault with
a deadly weapon in 1997 but pled guilty to the misdemeanor offense of deadly
4 conduct in 1998. He pled guilty to misdemeanor theft of property in 2012.
Defendant’s probation was revoked at least twice in Texas. At the time of his
sentencing in this matter, Sheriffs’ offices in Beauregard and Calcasieu Parishes had
detainers for Defendant, and the State of Texas had a parole violation warrant on
him. The trial court noted Defendant’s first conviction was at age eighteen; he was
fifty-one at the time of his sentencing in this matter. His total past sentences totaled
seventy-one years of confinement; his criminal history included crimes of violence.
The trial judge felt “the public is not safe” with Defendant on the street.
Defendant was exposed to a sentence of imprisonment with or without
hard labor for up to twelve years and/or a fine of up to $2,000 for the crime of simple
burglary. La.R.S. 14:62. He was exposed to a sentence of imprisonment with or
without hard labor for up to five years and/or a fine of $3,000 for the crime of theft.
La.R.S. 14:67(B)(3). In spite of Defendant’s lengthy criminal history, the trial judge
did not impose a maximum sentence for any of the crimes. However, the trial court
did impose the sentences to run consecutively to each other and to another, unrelated
sentence. Nevertheless, Defendant received a substantial benefit through this plea
agreement.
As counsel’s brief noted, Defendant’s motion to reconsider his
sentences did not set out any mitigating circumstances or anything in the record to
support lesser sentences. Further, La.Code Crim.P. art. 883 allows the trial court to
expressly direct a defendant’s sentences to run consecutively as the trial court did
here. Defendant entered an open-ended plea with no sentencing agreement or cap.
We find the record indicates no non-frivolous issues for appeal regarding sentencing.
We note the bill of information incorrectly cited Defendant’s
convictions for theft of items valued from $1,000 to $5,000 as La.R.S. 14:67(B)(2).
5 However, “[e]rror in the citation or its omission shall not be ground for dismissal of
the indictment or for reversal of a conviction if the error or omission did not mislead
the defendant to his prejudice.” La.Code Crim.P. art. 464. Our review of the record
does not suggest Defendant suffered any prejudice because of the erroneous citation
of the number of the subparagraph; thus, any error would be harmless. Additionally,
by entering an unqualified plea, Defendant waived review of this non-jurisdictional
pre-plea defect. See State v. Crosby, 338 So.2d 584 (La.1976). Accordingly, this
error is harmless and/or was waived by Defendant’s plea, and it does not present a
non-frivolous issue for appeal. State v. Allen, 09-1281 (La.App. 3 Cir. 5/5/10), 36
So.3d 1091.
Our review of the record reveals no issues that would support an
assignment of error on appeal beyond the potential issues addressed by counsel.
Therefore, we affirm Defendant’s convictions and sentences and grant counsel’s
motion to withdraw.
CONVICTION AND SENTENCE AFFIRMED. MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED.
THIS OPINION IS NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. RULE 2-16.3, UNIFORM RULES—COURTS OF APPEAL.