NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT 2021 KA 1211
STATE OF LOUISIANA

VERSUS JORDAN SINGLETARY

Judgment Rendered:

On Appeal from the Nineteenth Judicial District Court In and for the Parish of East Baton Rouge

State of Louisiana Docket No. 02- 19- 0327 Honorable Bonnie F. Jackson,' Judge Presiding

Hillar C. Moore, III District Attorney Jerri Ann Lee Assistant District Attorney Baton Rouge, Louisiana
Lieu T. Vo Clark Louisiana Appellate Project Mandeville, Louisiana Counsel for Appellee State of Louisiana

Counsel for Defendant/Appellant Jordan Singletary

BEFORE: MCCLENDON, WELCH, AND THERIOT, JJ. 1 r 1 4



### 1 Judge Jackson, who presided overthis matter, was succeeded bythe Honorable Eboni Johnson Rose, elected in December 2020 to Division K/Section 4 ofthe 19th JDC.McCLENDON, 3. The defendant, Jordan Singletary, was charged by bill of information with molestation of a juvenile, a violation of LSA- R.S. 14:81. 2. The defendant pled not guilty to the charge. The defendant subsequently withdrew his not guilty plea and, at a 

## Boykin hearing, pled guiltytothe amended charge of indecent behaviorwith juveniles,
a violation of LSA- R.S. 14: 81. 

### See Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 243, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 1712, 23 L. Ed. 2d 274 ( 1969). The defendant was sentenced to seven years 

## imprisonment at hard labor with the first two years of the sentence to be served without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence. The defendant was 

## given creditfortime served, the balance ofthe defendant's sentence was subsequently suspended, 

### and the defendant was placed on active supervised probation for three
years. The defendant now appeals. We affirm the conviction and sentence. FACTS 

### Because the defendant pled guilty, the facts were not fully developed. At the 

## Boykin hearing, the prosecutor informed the trial court thatthe defendant previously dated the mother of J. W., 

### the victim, and agreed to watch J.W. between September 28, 2018 and September 30, 2018. When J.W.'s mother went to pick up J. W., she overheard the defendant telling J.W. to rub his penis. Additionally, J.W. told her 

### mother that the defendant showed herpornography and attempted to touch her breasts through her shirt. ISSUES PRESENTED 

## Appellate counsel forthe defendant has filed a motion to withdraw as counsel of record, 

### together with a brief referencing the procedures outlined in Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 ( 1967), State v. Tyles, 96- 2669 ( La. 12/ 12/ 97), 704 So.2d 241 ( per curiam), and State v. Benjamin, 573 So.2d 528 ( La.App. 4 Cir. 1990). Appellate counsel avers that, after a conscientious and 

## thorough review ofthe record, she has found no nonfrivolous issues to raise on appeal and no ruling ofthe trial court that arguably supports an appeal.

## Appellate counsel has notified the defendant of the filing of this motion and

informed him of his right to file a pro se brief. 

### The defendant has not filed a pro se brief with this court. 

## This court has performed an independent, thorough review of the pleadings, minute entries, bill of information, and transcripts in the appeal record. The defendant 

# was properlycharged by bill ofinformation; the bill was signed bythe DistrictAttorney or an assistant district attorney. 

## The defendant was present and represented by counsel at arraignment, sentencing, and guilty plea. The sentence imposed is legal in all respects. 

### See Benjamin, 573 So.2d at 531. 

# While appellate counsel makes no specific argument on appeal, she asks us to review the record for patent error. 

### This court routinely reviews the record for error under LSA-C.Cr.P. art. 920(2), 

### whether or not such a request is made by a defendant or defense counsel. Under LSA-C.Cr.P. art. 920(2), we are limited in our review to errors 

# discoverable bya mere inspection ofthe pleadings and proceedings without inspection of the evidence. 

### See State v. Price, 2005-2514 ( La.App. 1 Cir. 12/28/06), 952 So. 2d 112, 123-25 ( en banc), writ denied, 2007-0130 ( La. 2/22/08), 976 So.2d 1277. After a 

## careful review ofthe record in these proceedings, we have found no reversible patent
errors.

# Our independent review reveals no nonfrivolous issues which arguably support this appeal. Accordingly, 

## the defendant's conviction and sentence are affirmed. 

# Appellatecounsel'smotiontowithdrawasattorneyofrecord isherebygranted. CONCLUSION 

### CONVICTION AND SENTENCE AFFIRMED; 

### MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS 

### ATTORNEY OF RECORD GRANTED.

3