Court Opinion

ID: 9657342
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 20:22:16.176276+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:43.912971
License: Public Domain

WICKER, J.,
dissents with reasons.
| iWhile I agree that after reviewing the counseled Anders brief and the record there appear to be no nonfrivolous issues and it appears that the conviction and sentence should be affirmed and counsel allowed to withdraw, I respectfully dissent for the following reasons.
On September 10, 2009 defendant Ash-ton Campbell mailed a letter to this Court. That letter reads in pertinent part:
On 14 January 2009, this Court granted an out-of-time appeal and the trial court issued a return date. Also, the Louisiana Appellate Project was appointed to represent my interests.
After several months of correspondence, the Appellate attorney (Gwendolyn K. Brown) withdrew as counsel. As a result, I am uncertain as to whether or not she filed an appellate brief on my behalf. If she did not file a brief, the return date has certainly expired.
I am still interested in filing an appeal for the Court’s review, and I am certain that a new return date will need to be set.
If an appellate brief was filed, then please notify me of the date of filing. If not, can you kindly extend the return date by which I may file a brief in proper person.
Considering that appellant counsel filed an Anders brief, the majority does not consider the September letter to be a motion to file a supplemental brief. I disagree. .Since the brief filed by appellate counsel argues no errors, I would construe the September letter as a motion to file a supplemental brief. A layman who represents himself cannot be held to the same standards of skill and judgment that must be attributed to an attorney. Salley & Salley v. Stoll, 03-807 (La.App. 5 Cir. *47512/9/03), 864 So.2d 698, 702; Rader v. Department of Health and Hospitals, Office of Public Health, Engineering Services, 94-0763 (La.App. 1 Cir. 3/3/95), 652 So.2d 644, 646. Furthermore, in the interests of justice, this Court has the discretion to treat pro se filings with greater indulgence than those filed by a paid attorney. See, e.g., In re Succession of Taylor, 44,471 (La.App. 2 Cir. 6/24/09), 13 So.3d 1253, 1256.
I,therefore, am of the opinion that addressing this matter on the merits at this juncture is premature. I would give the defendant twenty-five days to file a supplemental brief and address this case on the merits thereafter.