Court Opinion

ID: 9840221
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-15 16:06:02.908982+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:11:22.899610
License: Public Domain

STATE OF LOUISIANA

                               COURT OF APPEAL

                                  FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 NO. 2023 KA 0120

                            STATE OF LOUISIANA

                                       VERSUS
    5£
                                CEDRIC EMERSON

                                                 Judgment Rendered:   SEP 15 2023

                                   Appealed from the
                               23rd Judicial District Court
                        Parish of Ascension, State of Louisiana
                                       No. 38, 852

                    The Honorable Cody M. Martin, Judge Presiding

Ricky L. Babin                                  Attorneys for the State of Louisiana
District Attorney
Donald D. Candell

Lindsey Manda
Assistant District Attorneys
Gonzales, Louisiana

Prentice L. White                               Attorney for Defendant/Appellant,
Baton Rouge, Louisiana                          Cedric Emerson

              BEFORE: WELCH, HOLDRIDGE, AND WOLFE, JJ.
WOLFE, J.

         The defendant, Cedric Emerson, was charged by grand jury indictment with

second degree murder, a violation of La. R. S. 14: 30. 1.         In exchange for the State' s

agreement not to file a multiple offender bill of information, the defendant pled

guilty under North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 91 S. Ct. 160, 27 L.Ed.2d 162

    1970), to the amended charge of manslaughter, a violation of La. R. S. 14: 31( A)(2).

The trial court sentenced the defendant to forty years imprisonment at hard labor.

The defendant now appeals.          We affirm the defendant' s conviction and sentence,

and grant the defendant' s appellate counsel' s motion to withdraw.

                                             FACTS

         The defendant agreed to the following statement of facts, which the trial court

read into the record during the Boykin' colloquy:

                On or about March 11, 2018, in the Parish of Ascension, Cedric
         Emerson committed the offense of Manslaughter when the life of
         Frederick Patterson was taken. This offense was completed at 15083
         Braud Road in Prairieville, Louisiana at approximately 7: 30 to 7: 40 on
         3- 11- 2018. Cedric Emerson walked away from a chess game he and

         another were playing and returned with a shotgun. The evidence would
         suggest per the gunpowder residue test that Mr. Emerson shot the gun.
         This shot severed Mr. Patterson' s spinal cord.          This act caused Mr.
         Patterson' s death and was witnessed.

                                         DISCUSSION

         Appellate counsel for the defendant filed a brief containing no assignments of

error and requests that this court grant his motion to withdraw as counsel of record.

In compliance with the procedures outlined in Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738,

87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed. 2d 493 ( 1967), State v. Jyles, 96- 2669 ( La. 12112197), 704

So. 2d 241 ( per curiarn), and State v. Benjamin, 573 So. 2d 528 ( La. App. 4th Cir.

1990), appellate counsel indicated that after a conscientious and thorough review of

the record, he could find no non -frivolous issues to raise on appeal, and could find

1
      See Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U. S. 238, 89 S. Ct. 1709, 23 L.Ed.2d 274 ( 1969).

                                                 2
no ruling of the trial court that arguably supports the appeal. Appellate counsel has

certified that the defendant was served with a copy of both the Anders brief and the

motion to withdraw as attorney of record. The defendant did not file a timely pro se

brief with this court.

        After reviewing the appellate record, including the pleadings, minute entries,

indictment, and transcripts in the appeal record, we find that it supports the

defendant' s appellate counsel' s assertion that there are no non -frivolous issues to

raise   on   appeal.   The defendant pled guilty without reserving the right to seek

appellate review of any rulings.'       A guilty plea is a conviction and, therefore, should

be afforded a great measure of finality. State v. Faciane, 2022- 0569 ( La. App. 1 st

Cir. 1114122), 2022 WL 16707793, * 2 ( unpublished), writ denied, 2022- 01762 ( La.

3/ 14/ 23), 357 So. 3d 825.    A guilty plea entered without a reservation of the right to

appeal waives all nonjurisdictional defects in the proceedings prior to the plea and

precludes review thereof either by appeal or by post -conviction remedy. See State

v. Clues -Alexander, 2021- 00831 ( La. 5/ 13/ 22), 345 So. 3d 983, 987 ( per curiam),

cert. denied, 143 S. Ct. 461, 214 L.Ed.2d 262 ( 2022).                Thus, appellate review is

confined to the question of whether the guilty plea was constitutionally infirm. See

Id., Faciane, 2022 WL 16707793 at * 2; see also State v. Collins, 2014- 1461 ( La.

2/ 27/ 15), 159 So. 3d 1040 (per curiam); State v. Guzman, 99- 1528 ( La. 5/ 16100)                  1,

769 So. 2d 1158, 1162; State v. Prestenbach, 2021- 528 ( La. App. 5th Cir. 11/ 24/21),

347 So. 3d 1087, 1091. Our review of the record reveals no constitutional infirmities

or irregularities in the defendant' s guilty plea that would render it invalid.

    The defendant pled guilty under Alford, which allows an individual accused of a crime to
voluntarily, knowingly, and understandably consent to the imposition of a prison sentence even if
he is unwilling to admit his participation in the acts constituting the crime. State v. Spikes, 2017-
0087 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 9115117), 228 So. 3d 201, 206 n. 3. The defendant did not preserve any
issue for appeal pursuant to State v, Crosby, 338 So. 2d 584 ( La. 1976), which allows a defendant
to plead guilty while expressly reserving the right to seek appellate review of an error the defendant
believes made useless any continued trial of their defense. See State v. Clues -Alexander, 2021-
00831 ( La. 5113122), 345 So. 3d 983, 987 (per curium), cert. denied, 143 S. Ct. 461, 214 L.Ed.2d
262 ( 2022).

                                                  3
       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 defense

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.      See State v. Price, 2005- 2514 ( La. App. 1st Cir.

12/ 28/ 06), 952 So. 2d 112, 123 ( en bane), writ denied, 2007- 0130 ( La. 2/ 22/ 08), 976

So. 2d 1277. After a careful review of the record in these proceedings, we have found

no reversible patent errors.

       Our independent review reveals no non -frivolous issues which arguably

support this appeal.     Accordingly, the defendant' s conviction and sentence are

affirmed. The defendant' s appellate counsel' s motion to withdraw is hereby granted.

CONVICTION AND SENTENCE AFFIRMED; MOTION TO WITHDRAW
GRANTED.

                                            4