State Of Louisiana v. Cedric Emerson ( 2023 )


Menu:
  •                             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
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 2023KA0120

Filed Date: 9/15/2023

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 9/15/2023