State v. Julien

Citations: 225 So. 3d 1197; 17 La.App. 5 Cir. 57; 2017 La. App. LEXIS 1604; 2017 WL 4019180Docket: NO. 17-KA-57

Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal; September 13, 2017; Louisiana; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Jeremy C. Julien appeals his felony convictions and sentences, including his multiple offender adjudication. The court affirms his convictions and sentences, with an amendment noted for count three, and remands for correction of identified patent errors. On March 22, 2012, Julien was indicted on multiple charges, including second degree murder, distribution and possession with intent to distribute heroin, possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, and possession of hydrocodone. After initially pleading not guilty, he later pled guilty to manslaughter and the other charges on September 17, 2014. The trial court sentenced him to various terms of imprisonment, running concurrently, including thirty years for manslaughter and forty years for distribution of heroin. Following his stipulation to a multiple offender bill, his sentence on the distribution charge was vacated and re-sentenced. Julien's motion to reconsider his sentence was denied, but he was granted an out-of-time appeal after filing for post-conviction relief. Appellate counsel submitted an Anders brief, indicating no non-frivolous issues for appeal and seeking to withdraw from the case.

An appellate court must independently review the record for compliance with Anders to establish if an appeal is wholly frivolous. If no non-frivolous issues are found, the court can grant counsel's motion to withdraw and affirm the conviction and sentence. In this case, the defendant’s appellate counsel submitted an Anders brief detailing the procedural history, pre-trial facts, and circumstances of the guilty pleas and sentencing. Counsel concluded that there were no non-frivolous issues for appeal and noted that the trial court had adequately addressed all motions and objections, and that the defendant was fully informed of his rights and the implications of his guilty pleas, which conformed to plea agreements and statutory penalties.

Counsel also filed a motion to withdraw, indicating that the defendant was advised of his right to submit his own brief. The defendant did file a pro se supplemental brief, raising concerns about the voluntariness of his pleas due to ineffective assistance of counsel. However, the independent review confirmed that the indictment was appropriately charged and that the defendant, along with his counsel, attended all key proceedings. 

The defendant's unqualified guilty pleas waived all non-jurisdictional defects in prior proceedings. No pre-trial rulings were preserved for appeal, and only constitutionally infirm guilty pleas can be challenged after sentencing. The review found no constitutional issues with the pleas, as the defendant was adequately informed of the charges and his rights, and signed a waiver of rights form indicating his understanding of the implications of pleading guilty.

Defendant acknowledged understanding the rights waived by pleading guilty and was informed about his sentencing exposure and the actual sentences to be imposed. During the colloquy and in the waiver form, he confirmed that he had not been coerced into pleading guilty. The trial court accepted his pleas as knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. In the multiple offender proceedings, he was advised of his rights, including the right to a hearing and the potential sentencing range as a second felony offender. Defendant voluntarily stipulated to the multiple offender bill and understood the legal consequences of his plea. The sentences imposed were in accordance with the plea agreements and fell within statutory ranges. The court noted that La. C.Cr. P. art. 881.2(A)(2) bars a defendant from seeking sentence review if it conforms to the plea agreement. Defendant, in a pro se brief, challenged the validity of his pleas, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel due to erroneous advice regarding sentence reduction. The court stated that such claims are best addressed through post-conviction relief in the district court, where an evidentiary hearing can be conducted, rather than through direct appeal.

An errors patent review was requested by the defendant's appellate counsel, prompting a routine examination of the record for any significant errors. The review revealed that the trial judge improperly restricted parole on count three, contrary to La. R.S. 40:966(A), which mandates no restrictions. The sentence on count three was amended to remove this restriction, although the minute entry and commitment documents were found to accurately reflect no such restriction, negating the need for amendments to those documents.

Additionally, inconsistencies were identified between the transcript and the minute entry/commitment regarding count four's sentencing, which included a ten-year imprisonment without benefits of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence. The uniform commitment order incorrectly noted the offense dates for counts one and two, which needed correction to reflect the accurate dates of December 7 and December 15, 2011, respectively.

The Court directed the trial court to amend the minute entry/commitment and uniform commitment orders accordingly and instructed the Clerk of Court to transmit the corrected documents to the appropriate authorities. The review found no basis for a non-frivolous appeal regarding the defendant's guilty pleas or sentencing, leading to the affirmation of the convictions and sentences, with specific amendments noted. The appellate counsel's motion to withdraw was granted.

The excerpt also referenced the defendant's earlier guilty pleas to misdemeanor charges and indicated that the record did not support the claim that the pleas were entered under Crosby, despite a notation in the State's brief. The trial judge's parole restriction on count two had been vacated before the imposition of an enhanced sentence, which was then properly executed without probation or suspension of sentence.