State of Louisiana v. Lionel Paul Dugas

• Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
• Decided: April 25, 2012
• Docket: KA-0011-0167
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

11-167

STATE OF LOUISIANA

VERSUS

LIONEL PAUL DUGAS

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

APPEAL FROM THE SIXTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF IBERIA, NO. 07-2346 HONORABLE GERARD B. WATTIGNY, DISTRICT JUDGE

PHYLLIS M. KEATY JUDGE

Court composed of Ulysses Gene Thibodeaux, Chief Judge, Marc T. Amy, and Phyllis M. Keaty, Judges.

Amy, J., concurs in the result, affirming the defendant’s conviction and sentence and granting the motion to withdraw.

CONVICTION AND SENTENCE AFFIRMED; MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED.

J. Phil Haney District Attorney Angela B. Odinet Assistant District Attorney 300 Iberia Street, Suite 200 New Iberia, Louisiana 70560 (337) 369-4420 Counsel for Appellee: State of Louisiana G. Paul Marx Louisiana Appellate Project Post Office Box 82389 Lafayette, Louisiana 70598 (337) 237-2537 Counsel for Defendant/Appellant: Lionel Paul Dugas

Beth Smith Fontenot Louisiana Appellate Project Post Office Box 3183 Lake Charles, Louisiana 70602 (337) 491-3864 Counsel for Defendant/Appellant: Lionel Paul Dugas

Lionel Paul Dugas, #297292 In Proper Person Richwood Correctional Center 180 Pine Bayou Circle Monroe, Louisiana 71202 Defendant KEATY, Judge.

Defendant, Lionel Paul Dugas, was charged by bill of information filed on

November 6, 2007, with illegal possession of stolen things with a value over $500,

a violation of La.R.S. 14:69. He pled guilty to the charge on January 8, 2010. As

part of the plea agreement, Defendant agreed to plead guilty to forgery in trial

court docket number 07-1638, which is before this court in appellate docket

number 11-165, and unauthorized use of a motor vehicle in trial court docket

number 09-2265, which is before this court in appellate docket number 11-169.

The plea agreement between the State and Defendant included a provision that

Defendant was ―to plead as a second felony offender on a multiple offender bill of

information.‖ On January 8, 2010, Defendant was sentenced to serve ten years at

hard labor, in accordance with the plea agreement. Defendant’s motion for out of

time appeal was filed on May 18, 2010, and was subsequently granted.

Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386

U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396 (1967) in this matter, as well as in appellate docket

numbers 11-165 and 11-169, alleging that the record does not contain any errors

that would support a reversal of Defendant’s conviction and sentence in this

matter. In appellate docket number 11-165, this court denied appellate counsel’s

motion to withdraw and ordered counsel to file a new brief addressing several

issues, including the voluntariness of Defendant’s guilty plea to the habitual

offender bill of information. State v. Dugas, an unpublished opinion bearing

docket number 11-165 (La.App. 3 Cir. 10/12/11), 2011 WL 4808205. Because of

the possible impact on the instant case, this matter was stayed pending receipt and

review of the briefs in appellate docket number 11-165. An opinion in that matter

has been rendered, and this matter is no longer stayed. After reviewing the record, we affirm Defendant’s conviction and sentence and grant counsel’s motion to

withdraw.1

FACTS

On September 19, 2007, Defendant removed a dirt bike from the back of

Joseph Naquin’s truck and was observed pushing the bike down the street. When

Defendant saw police, he dropped the bike and fled.

ERRORS PATENT

In accordance with La.Code Crim.P. art. 920, all appeals are reviewed for

errors patent on the face of the record. After reviewing the record, we find that

there are no errors patent.

ANDERS ANALYSIS

Pursuant to Anders, Defendant’s appellate counsel has filed a brief stating

she could find no errors on appeal that would support reversal of the Defendant’s

conviction or sentence. Thus, counsel seeks 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

1 Appellate counsel asserted there were no non-frivolous errors in the case. Defendant only appeals his habitual offender conviction, which was based on his plea to forgery in trial court docket number 07-1638 (appellate docket number 11-165) and is the underlying conviction of a controlled dangerous substance. 2 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 and Benjamin, we performed a thorough review of the

record, including pleadings, minute entries, the charging instrument, and the

transcripts. Defendant was properly charged by bill of information, was present

and represented by counsel at all crucial stages of the proceedings, and entered a

free and voluntary guilty plea after properly being advised of his rights in

accordance with Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 89 S.Ct. 1709 (1969).

Additionally, Defendant received a legal sentence.

DECREE

Our review of the record has revealed no issues which would support an

assignment of error on appeal. Therefore, Defendant’s conviction and sentence are

affirmed, and appellate counsel’s motion to withdraw 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.