STATE v. CHAUNCEY (2025)

This appeal is one of three appeals filed by defendant, Jason J. Chauncey.¹ In this matter, defendant appeals his convictions and sentences for possession of hydrocodone weighing less than two grams in violation of La. R.S. 40:967(C) and possession of methamphetamine weighing less than two grams in violation of La. R.S. 40:967(C). On October 31, 2024, defendant pled guilty as charged.² The trial court sentenced defendant to two years imprisonment at hard labor on each count to run concurrently with each other, and with the sentences imposed in case numbers 23-5826 and 24-600, defendant's additional cases pending in the 24th Judicial District Court. Defendant's appointed appellate counsel filed a brief asserting that after a review of the record, he found no appealable issues or defects in the plea procedure in this matter, but requests a review for errors patent. This filing is commonly referred to as an Anders brief. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). For the following reasons, we agree with counsel's assessment, and affirm defendant's convictions and sentences.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On December 18, 2023, the Jefferson Parish District Attorney filed a bill of information charging defendant with possession of hydrocodone weighing less than two grams in violation of La. R.S. 40:967(C) (count one) and possession of methamphetamine weighing less than two grams in violation of La. R.S. 40:967(C) (count two). Defendant pled not guilty to both counts at his arraignment on January 8, 2024.

On June 27, 2024, a Frye ³ hearing was held where the State advised defendant of a plea offer of a “double bill” and an eight-year sentence. During the hearing, the trial court explained that if the defense proceeded with motions scheduled for hearing on August 8, 2024, the offer would no longer be available. Defendant indicated that he understood. On August 8, 2024, the defense waived motions, indicated that there was no objection to defendant's statement being used as evidence, and chose to proceed with a trial at a later date.

On October 31, 2024, defendant accepted the plea offer, withdrew his initial not guilty plea and pled guilty as charged. The trial court then sentenced defendant to two years imprisonment at hard labor on each count to run concurrently with each other, and with defendant's additional sentences imposed that day. The trial court also ordered defendant to pay fines, fees, and court costs. On December 2, 2024, the trial court granted defendant's Motion for Appeal and appointed the Louisiana Appellate Project as appellate counsel.

FACTS

Because defendant's convictions resulted from guilty pleas, the underlying facts were not fully developed at a trial. However, during the colloquy, the prosecutor indicated that if the matter proceeded to trial, the State would prove that on or about November 29, 2023, defendant violated La. R.S. 40:967(C) in that he did knowingly or intentionally possess a controlled dangerous substance, to wit: hydrocodone weighing less than two grams. The State also indicated that it would prove that on November 29, 2023, defendant violated La. R.S. 40:967(C) in that he did knowingly or intentionally possess a controlled dangerous substance, to wit: methamphetamine weighing less than two grams.

ANDERS BRIEF

Under the procedure adopted by this Court in State v. Bradford, 95-929 (La. App. 5 Cir. 6/25/96), 676 So.2d 1108, 1110-11,⁴ defendant's appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief asserting that after a review of the record, he could find no appealable issues or defects in the plea procedure but requests an errors patent review by this Court. In its response, the State questions the depth of appellate counsel's review and takes no position on whether the brief filed on behalf of defendant complies with the procedure adopted by this Court in Bradford.

In Anders, the United States Supreme Court stated that appointed appellate counsel may request permission to withdraw if he finds his case to be wholly frivolous after a conscientious examination of it.⁵ The request must be accompanied by “a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal” so as to provide the reviewing court “with a basis for determining whether appointed counsel have fully performed their duty to support their clients’ appeals to the best of their ability” and to assist the reviewing court “in making the critical determination whether the appeal is indeed so frivolous that counsel should be permitted to withdraw.” McCoy v. Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, Dist. 1, 486 U.S. 429, 439, 108 S.Ct. 1895, 1902, 100 L.Ed.2d 440 (1988). Defendant's appellate counsel did not file a motion to withdraw as attorney of record in the instant case.

In State v. Jyles, 96-2669 (La. 12/12/97), 704 So.2d 241 (per curiam), the Louisiana Supreme Court stated that an Anders brief need not tediously catalog every meritless pretrial motion or objection made at trial with a detailed explanation of why the motions or objections lack merit. The Supreme Court further explained that an Anders brief must demonstrate by full discussion and analysis that appellate counsel “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.” Id.

When conducting a review for compliance with Anders, an appellate court must conduct an independent review of the record to determine whether the appeal is wholly frivolous. Bradford, 676 So.2d at 1110. Specifically, that review should include an examination of (1) the bill of information to ensure the defendant was properly charged; (2) all minute entries to ensure the defendant was present at all crucial stages of the proceedings, the jury composition and verdict were correct, and the sentence is legal; (3) all pleadings that are in the record; and (4) all transcripts to determine if any ruling provides an arguable basis for appeal. Id. at 1110-11. If, after an independent review, the reviewing court determines there are no non-frivolous issues for appeal, it may grant counsel's motion to withdraw and affirm the defendant's conviction and sentence. Conversely, if the court finds any legal point arguable on the merits, it may either deny the motion and order the court-appointed attorney to file a brief arguing the legal point(s) identified by the court, or grant the motion and appoint substitute appellate counsel. Id. at 1110.

In this case, appellate counsel's brief sets forth the limited facts and circumstances surrounding defendant's plea bargain. It states that defendant was charged with two violations of La. R.S. 40:967(C), possession of hydrocodone and methamphetamine, both less than two grams. These drugs were found pursuant to a traffic stop, during which officers observed readily available weapons. Officers also determined that defendant had an outstanding warrant for his arrest. The brief describes defendant reaching into his pocket to discard the drugs while handcuffed.

Appellate counsel points out that omnibus motions were filed by defendant's trial counsel, but were later waived, and the search was not challenged. The brief points out that the convictions and sentences were part of a plea bargain resulting in a reduction from a possible third-felony offender multiple bill to a second-felony offender multiple bill and an eight-year sentence. Counsel states he reviewed all three records and found no appealable issues or defects in the plea procedure, pointing out that the defendant agreed to each written Boykin ⁶ form. The record reflects that during the plea and sentencing colloquy with the trial judge, defendant agreed that he was waiving his right to appeal his convictions. Lastly, counsel asks this Court for an errors patent review. We find appellate counsel's brief demonstrates a conscientious review of the limited record in this case.

Upon receiving appellant's counselled brief, this Court sent defendant a letter by certified mail informing him that an Anders brief had been filed and that he had until March 28, 2025, to file a pro se supplemental brief. The Anders letter dated February 26, 2025, was returned on April 2, 2025. Upon notice that defendant had been transferred to another facility, this Court remailed the letter to the updated facility on April 2, 2025. Defendant did not file a pro se brief in this matter.

ANDERS ANALYSIS

Pursuant to Anders, this Court has performed a thorough review of the record, including the pleadings, minute entries, charging instrument, and the Boykin transcript. Our independent review of the record supports appellate counsel's assertion that there are no non-frivolous issues to be raised on appeal.

First, our examination shows defendant was properly charged in a bill of information which plainly and concisely stated the essential facts constituting the charged offenses and sufficiently identified the defendant. See generally La. C.Cr.P. arts. 464 and 466. Also, the minute entries reflect that defendant was present and represented by counsel at all crucial stages of the proceedings against him, including his arraignment, guilty plea and sentencing. Thus, defendant's presence does not present any issues that would support an appeal.

The record also indicates that on March 18, 2024, defense counsel filed omnibus motions, which included a “motion to suppress the statement(s),” request for discovery and bill of particulars, motion for preliminary examination, motion for reasonable notice of return date, motion to suppress the evidence, motion to suppress the identification, and motion for discovery of defendant's statement. The record also reflects that on August 8, 2024, defense counsel waived those motions, stating there was no basis for objecting to defendant's statement being used as evidence and that defendant's constitutional rights were not violated with respect to his statement.⁷

Additionally, the record shows that defendant entered a guilty plea in this case. Generally, when a defendant pleads guilty, he waives all non-jurisdictional defects in the proceedings leading up to the guilty plea, and is precluded from review of such defects either by appeal or post-conviction relief. State v. Turner, 09-1079 (La. App. 5 Cir. 7/27/10), 47 So.3d 455, 459. Also, once a defendant is sentenced, only those guilty pleas that are unconstitutionally infirm may be withdrawn by appeal or by an application for post-conviction relief. State v. McCoil, 05-658 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2/27/06), 924 So.2d 1120, 1124. A guilty plea is unconstitutionally infirm when it is not entered freely and voluntarily, if the Boykin colloquy is inadequate, or when a defendant is induced to enter the plea by a plea bargain, or what he justifiably believes was a plea bargain, and that bargain is not kept. Id. Here, the defendant entered an unqualified guilty plea, and therefore, all non-jurisdictional defects are waived.

Next, our examination reveals no unconstitutional infirmity or any irregularity in defendant's guilty pleas that would render them invalid. The transcript of the colloquy shows that defense counsel stated he and the State had negotiated a plea agreement pursuant to which defendant would be pleading guilty as charged to all counts in all three cases. During the colloquy, the trial judge advised defendant that by pleading guilty, he was giving up the right to trial by judge or jury, to require the State to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, to confront his accusers and cross-examine witnesses called to testify against him, to remain silent, to present witnesses who would testify on his behalf and present evidence that would be helpful or favorable to him, to the assistance of a lawyer, to appellate review of an adverse verdict at trial, and to a free court-appointed lawyer if he could not afford one. When the trial judge asked defendant if he understood these rights, defendant said, “I heard you sir.”

The trial judge advised defendant that in the instant case, the sentence would be “two years” on each count to run concurrently with each other, and with the sentences imposed in defendant's additional cases.⁸ Defendant indicated he understood what his sentences would be, and he stated no one was forcing or threatening him to enter his pleas. He understood that by pleading guilty to the felony charges, the pleas could be used to enhance a penalty of a future conviction. Defendant also understood his guilty pleas could affect other rights, including his right to vote, to bear arms, and to receive housing benefits. The trial judge further advised there would be fines, fees, and costs assessed, which defendant indicated he understood.

The trial judge pointed out he had the waiver of rights form with the initials “JC” and a signature, and defendant confirmed those were his initials and his signature. Defense counsel also confirmed he signed the form indicating defendant had been explained his rights, understood them, and was entering into the pleas freely and voluntarily. The State then provided a factual basis for the pleas to which defendant agreed. Afterward, the trial judge said he was satisfied defendant understood the consequences of his pleas and had entered into them freely and voluntarily. The trial judge accepted the pleas and sentenced defendant in this case to two years imprisonment at hard labor on each count to run concurrently with each other, and with the additional sentences imposed that day.

And finally, our examination reveals that the sentences imposed do not present any issues for appeal. The record shows that the sentences are within the sentencing ranges prescribed in La. R.S. 40:967(C) and were imposed pursuant to, and in conformity with, the plea agreement. La. C.Cr.P. art. 881.2(A)(2) precludes a defendant from seeking review of his sentence imposed in conformity with a plea agreement, which was set forth in the record at the time of the plea. State v. Surgi, 24-291 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2/26/25), 406 So.3d 1214, 1219. As such, defendant's sentences do not provide a basis for appeal in this matter.

Based on the foregoing, we find that defendant's guilty pleas and sentences imposed pursuant to the plea agreement present no issues for appeal. Appellate counsel's brief adequately demonstrates by discussion and analysis that he reviewed the proceedings and cannot identify any basis for a non-frivolous appeal. Our independent review of the record supports appellate counsel's assertion.

ERRORS PATENT REVIEW

Defendant requests an errors patent review. We routinely review the record for errors patent in accordance with La. C.Cr.P. art. 920; State v. Oliveaux, 312 So.2d 337 (La. 1975); and State v. Weiland, 556 So.2d 175 (La. App. 5 Cir. 1990). Our review reveals no errors patent in this case.

DECREE

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm defendant's convictions and sentences.

AFFIRMED

FOOTNOTES

1.   Defendant has two companion cases, 25-KA-11 (district court case no. 24-600) and 25-KA-12 (district court case no. 23-5826), pending in this Court.

2.   In connection with a plea bargain, defendant entered a plea of guilty as charged in district court case numbers 23-5825 (instant matter), 23-5826, and 24-600.

3.   The purpose of a Frye hearing, which arose out of the case of Missouri v. Frye, 566 U.S. 134, 132 S.Ct. 1399, 182 L.Ed.2d 379 (2012), “is to make a record of the fulfillment of defense counsel's obligation to communicate favorable plea offers and to effectively assist the defendant in deciding whether to accept the State's offer or proceed to trial.” State v. Lucia, 18-37 (La. App. 5 Cir. 10/17/18), 257 So.3d 1271, 1279 n. 10, writ denied, 18-1917 (La. 9/6/19), 278 So.3d 969.

4.   In Bradford, this Court adopted the procedures outlined in State v. Benjamin, 573 So.2d 528, 530 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1990), which were sanctioned by the Louisiana Supreme Court in State v. Mouton, 95-981 (La. 4/28/95), 653 So.2d 1176, 1177 (per curiam).

5.   The United States Supreme Court reiterated Anders in Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 259, 120 S.Ct. 746, 145 L.Ed.2d 756 (2000).

6.   Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969).

7.   Even if defense counsel had not waived the motions, by not objecting and by pleading guilty, the motions are considered waived. See State v. Corzo, 04-791 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2/15/05), 896 So.2d 1101, 1102.

8.   It does not appear the trial judge verbally advised defendant of the sentencing range during the colloquy; however, defendant was advised in the waiver of rights form that the sentencing range for each conviction was zero to two years with a zero to five thousand dollar fine. Also, during the colloquy, the trial judge did not verbally advise defendant that the two-year sentences would be served at hard labor; however, the waiver of rights form, which was signed by defendant, indicates that he was so advised. La. R.S. 40:967(C)(1) provides that for a conviction involving an aggregate weight of less than two grams, the defendant shall be imprisoned, with or without hard labor, for not more than two years and, in addition, may be sentenced to pay a fine of not more than five thousand dollars.

MARCEL, J.