STATE OF LOUISIANA v. MIKAL BUIE (2026)

The defendant, Mikal Buie, was charged by bill of information with failure to register as a sex offender, a violation of La. R.S. 15:542,¹ and pled not guilty. After a trial by jury, the defendant was unanimously found guilty as charged. The trial court denied the defendant's post-trial motions, and the defendant expressly waived sentencing delays. The trial court then sentenced the defendant to four years imprisonment at hard labor without the benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence. The trial court subsequently denied the defendant's motion to reconsider sentence. Contending that there are no nonfrivolous issues to argue on appeal, appellate counsel filed a brief on behalf of the defendant raising no assignments of error. Appellate counsel also filed a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. For the following reasons, we affirm the conviction and sentence and grant appellate counsel's motion to withdraw.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

On January 24, 2022,² the defendant met with Detective Orlynthia Miller-White of the New Orleans Police Department (“NOPD”) to update his sex offender registration documentation, informing Detective Miller-White that he had a change of address and employment. The defendant, who previously lived in New Orleans, specifically informed Detective Miller-White that he was working at a car wash in Slidell, located at 1833 Old Spanish Trail, and that he was also residing there.³ The defendant was advised by Detective Miller-White that he had three days to contact St. Tammany Parish to complete the update of his registration requirements. The defendant also initialed every page of the sex offender registration form packet, including the page informing him that he had three days to report to the sheriff or police department in the parish in which he resided.

Detective Miller-White loaded the defendant's new address information into Offender Watch, the Louisiana database that alerts parish officials when a sex offender moves to their parish. Thus, the St. Tammany Parish Sheriff's Office (“STPSO”) was alerted of the defendant's move to St. Tammany Parish. Sergeant Angie Cook of the STPSO, Sex Offender Registry Unit, contacted Detective Miller-White, requesting the defendant's documentation. Thereafter, the defendant failed to appear before or contact the STPSO within three days of his change of address notification given to the NOPD. As a result, Sergeant Cook initiated an investigation on February 1, 2022; an arrest warrant was issued on February 14, 2022;⁴ and the defendant was arrested on the outstanding warrant on November 28, 2023.⁵

ANDERS BRIEF

In the instant case, appellate counsel has filed a brief containing no assignments of error and a motion to withdraw. In the brief and motion to withdraw, referring to the procedures outlined in State v. Jyles, 96-2669 (La. 12/12/97), 704 So.2d 241 (per curiam), counsel indicated that after a conscientious and thorough review of the record, he could find no nonfrivolous issues to raise on appeal, and could find no trial court rulings that would support the appeal.

The procedure in Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), is used in Louisiana, was sanctioned by the Louisiana Supreme Court in State v. Mouton, 95-0981 (La. 4/28/95), 653 So.2d 1176, 1177 (per curiam), and expanded by the Louisiana Supreme Court in Jyles, 704 So.2d at 242. According to Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S.Ct. at 1400, “if counsel finds his case to be wholly frivolous, after a conscientious examination of it, he should so advise the court and request permission to withdraw.” To comply with Jyles, appellate counsel must review not only the procedural history of the case and the evidence presented at trial, 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, 704 So.2d at 242 (quoting Mouton, 653 So.2d at 1177). 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. State v. Dyke, 2017-1303 (La. App. 1st Cir. 2/27/18), 244 So.3d 3, 6, writ denied sub nom. State v. Van Dyke, 2018-0622 (La. 2/18/19), 266 So.3d 285.

In the instant case, we find appellate counsel has complied with all the requirements necessary to file an Anders brief. Appellate counsel reviewed the procedural history, the facts of the case, and the sentencing proceeding. Appellate counsel concludes in his brief that there are no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Further, appellate counsel certifies that the defendant was served with a copy of the Anders brief and motion to withdraw as counsel of record. The defendant has been informed of his right to file a pro se brief on his own behalf, and the defendant has not filed a pro se brief.

This court has conducted an independent review of the entire record in this matter, including a review for error under La. Code Crim. P. art. 920(2). After reviewing the appellate record, including the pleadings, minute entries, bill of information, and transcripts in the appeal record, we find that it supports the defendant's appellate counsel's assertion that there are no nonfrivolous issues to raise on appeal. This court routinely reviews the record for patent error under La. Code Crim. P. art. 920(2), whether or not such a request is made by a defendant or appellate counsel. Under La. Code Crim. P. art. 920(2), we are limited in our review to errors discoverable by a mere inspection of the pleadings and proceedings without inspection of the evidence. State v. Emerson, 2023-0120 (La. App. 1st Cir. 9/15/23), 375 So.3d 1027, 1030. After a careful review, we have found no reversible errors under La. Code Crim. P. art. 920(2).

Further, we have found no nonfrivolous issues or trial court rulings which arguably support this appeal. The bill of information sufficiently ⁶ identified the defendant and the crime charged. See generally La. Code Crim. P. arts. 464–466. The minute entries show that the defendant and his counsel appeared at all crucial stages of the proceedings against him, including his arraignment, trial, and sentencing. In accordance with the above, the defendant's conviction and sentence are affirmed.⁷ Appellate counsel's motion to withdraw, which has been held in abeyance pending the disposition in this matter, is hereby granted.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the defendant's conviction and sentence are affirmed, and the motion to withdraw is granted.

CONVICTION AND SENTENCE AFFIRMED; MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED.

FOOTNOTES

1.   According to the bill of information and the parties’ stipulation at trial, in 2015, the defendant was convicted of indecent behavior with juveniles in Orleans Parish, requiring him to register as a sex offender. See La. R.S. 15:542(A)(1)(a); La. R.S. 15:541; La. R.S. 14:81.

2.   We note the defendant handwrote the year 2021, when he signed the registration history form providing notification of a change of address. However, trial testimony, investigative notes, and the completed registration form initialed by the defendant shows the meeting took place in 2022.

3.   The defendant gave the same address to his probation officer, Officer Brandon Rosenberry. Officer Rosenberry visited the defendant at the Slidell location three times in a three-month period, between February and April of 2022. When he attempted to visit the defendant after April, the car wash had been closed. Officer Rosenberry did not have any further contact with the defendant before his arrest for the instant offense. Officer Rosenberry did not supervise the defendant regarding his sex offender registration requirements, and his agency would not have been made aware of any violations or warrants based on the sex offender registry.

4.   Additionally, the defendant did not contact the STPSO for his requisite annual check on August 16, 2022.

5.   The defendant testified at trial. He stated he was released from prison in 2019 after his conviction of indecent behavior with juveniles. He claimed to be legally blind and confused regarding the difference between a current, working, and/or business address when he filled out the change of address form. He stated he was only working at the car wash in Slidell and was still living in Orleans Parish when he completed the packet.

6.   We note the bill of information omits citations for applicable subsections of La. R.S. 15:542: La. R.S. 15:542.1.4, which provides the penalty for the instant offense, and La. R.S. 15:542.1.2, from which a portion of the jury instructions was derived. However, counsel was aware of La. R.S. 15:542.1.4 at sentencing. Also, the minutes indicate there was a preliminary examination and discovery was satisfied in this case. Further, there is no indication these statutory citation omissions misled the defendant to his prejudice or any objection below regarding the bill of information. See State v. Ball, 2016-653 (La. App. 3d Cir. 12/7/16), 209 So.3d 793, 815, writ denied, 2017-0045 (La. 9/22/17), 227 So.3d 825; State v. Jones, 2015-0757 (La. App. 1st Cir. 11/9/15), 2015 WL 6951576, *2 (unpublished), writ not considered sub nom. State ex rel. Jones v. State, 2016-0097 (La. 3/14/16), 189 So.3d 1064.

7.   We note after sentencing the trial court advised the defendant under La. Code Crim. P. art. 930.8(A) as follows, “[Y]ou have two years from the date your sentence becomes final to file application for post-conviction relief.” However, La. Code Crim. P. art. 930.8(A) generally provides that “[n]o application for post conviction relief ․ shall be considered if it is filed more than two years after the judgment of conviction and sentence has become final under the provisions of Article 914 or 922[.]” (emphasis added). Thus, the trial court's language did not track the language of La. Code Crim. P. art. 930.8(A) verbatim. Under La. Code Crim. P. art. 930.8(D), the trial court must “inform the defendant of the prescriptive period for post-conviction relief either verbally or in writing.” While it was not verbatim, we find the trial court's instruction satisfied the requirements of La. Code Crim. P. art. 930.8(D), as the defendant's sentence could not become final until there was a final judgment of conviction. Thus, we do not find the trial court's advice constituted patent error. Further, the trial court's advice has no bearing on the sentence. See State v. McCarty, 2024-1155 (La. App. 1st Cir. 12/2/25), ____ So.3d ___, 2025 WL 3635498, *6, n.8.

LANIER, J.