State Of Louisiana VS Warren D. Anthony
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT 2011 KA 0604 STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS WARREN D ANTHONY Judgment Rendered November 9 2011 APPEALED FROM THE TWENTY SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR THE PARISH OF ST TAMMANY STATE OF LOUISIANA DOCKET NUMBER 452845 DIVISION 111 THE HONORABLE WILLIAM J KNIGHT JUDGE Walter P Reed Attorneys for Appellee District Attorney State of Louisiana Covington Louisiana and Kathryn Landry Special Appeals Counsel Baton Rouge Louisiana Mary E Roper Baton Rouge Louisiana Attorney for Defendant Appellant Warren D Anthony BEFORE GAIDRY MCDONALD AND HUGHES JJ McDONALD J A 1 14 I McDONALD I The defendant Warren D Anthony was charged by bill of information with creation or operation of a clandestine laboratory for the unlawful manufacture of methamphetamine a violation of La R 40 count one possession of S 983 methamphetamine a violation of La R 40 count two and two counts S 967 C of cruelty to a juvenile violations of La R 14 counts three and four S 93 He pleaded not guilty The defendant was tried by a jury on counts one and two and was found guilty as charged The defendant moved for a postverdict judgment of acquittal and for a new trial The trial court denied both motions The defendant was sentenced to imprisonment at hard labor for fifteen years on count one and for five years on count two Thereafter the state filed a habitual offender bill of information alleging defendant was a third felony habitual offender Subsequently pursuant to a plea agreement the defendant admitted the allegations in the habitual offender bill The court vacated the sentence previously imposed on count one The defendant was sentenced to an enhanced sentence of twenty years at hard labor on count one The court ordered that the sentence run concurrently with the sentence in count two and with thirty months of a sentence the defendant was serving on a parole violation For the following reasons we affirm the defendant convictions habitual offender adjudication and sentences s Additionally we grant defense counsel motion to withdraw s On November 18 2009 Brandon Brown a loss prevention control manager at Walmart in Slidell Louisiana observed the defendant purchase several packages of lithium batteries and a blender the store on Mr Brown had also observed the defendant in previous occasions purchasing pseudoephedrine Mr Brown See also La R 40 Schedule I1 C S 964 2 2 The state reserved the right to proceed to trial on counts three and four at a later date 3 The habitual offender bill alleged the defendant was previously convicted of possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine and possession of marijuana second offense 2 recognized all of these items as instruments used to manufacture methamphetamine Mr Brown contacted the St Tammany Parish Sheriff Office s to report the suspicious purchases Mr Brown followed the defendant out of the store and observed him approach a female subsequently identified as Shawna Evans inside a vehicle Mr Brown recorded the license plate number of the vehicle and provided it along with a description of the vehicle to the police Mr Brown returned to the store and reviewed video surveillance footage showing that Evans had also purchased batteries that same day Less than two hours later Mr Brown observed Evans return to the store accompanied by a second female later identified as Mary Boyd Evans purchased a large bottle of Coleman fuel Mr Brown contacted the Sheriff Office again to report the s purchases Shortly thereafter St Tammany Parish Sheriff officers arrived at Walmart s and observed the vehicle driven by the defendant leaving the area The officers followed the vehicle to a residence on Admiral Nelson Drive The officers then began surveillance of the residence Eventually the officers observed the defendant exit the residence and later go back inside After observing a small child exit the residence the officers decided to approach child age seven to go get his mother The officers asked the small When the child opened the door the officers observed a haze in the air inside the residence Mary Boyd eventually came to the door The officers asked Boyd to have all the other occupants exit the residence Boyd complied defendant Fearing the defendant was inside the residence attempting to discard Everyone inside the residence exited except the evidence the officers asked for and were granted permission to enter the residence to conduct a protective sweep The officers knew the defendant was inside the home because they had observed him go inside residence the officers During the sweep of the located the defendant and placed him under arrest 3 Approximately 1 and a package of lithium batteries were removed from 00 196 the defendant sperson The officers obtained a search warrant for the residence During the search the officers recovered among other things a Hamilton Beach blender drain cleaner several boxes of salt rubbing alcohol and dismantled lithium batteries all items used to manufacture methamphetamine Outside on the ground the officers recovered a coffee filter containing methamphetamine The defendant and all of the adult occupants of the residence were arrested ANDERS BRIEF The defense brief contains no assignments of error and sets forth that it is filed to conform with State v Jyles 962669 La 12 704 So 241 per 97 2d curiam and State v Mouton 95 0981 pp 1 2 La 4 653 So 1176 95 28 2d 1177 per curiam wherein the Supreme Court sanctioned the procedures outlined in State v Benjamin 573 So 528 La App 4th Cir 1990 Benjamin set forth 2d a procedure to comply with Anders v California 386 U 738 744 87 S S Ct 1396 1400 18 L 493 1 wherein the U Supreme Court discussed 2d Ed 967 S how appellate counsel should proceed when upon conscientious review of a case counsel found no issues that are not frivolous Benjamin has repeatedly been cited with approval by the Louisiana Supreme Court See Jyles 971704 971707 p 1 704 So at 241 Mouton 95 0981 pp 1 2 653 So at 1177 State v Royals 2d 2d 600 So 653 La 1992 2d In the instant case the s defendant appellate counsel reviewed procedural history of the case and the evidence against the defendant the She affirmed that after a review of the record in this case she has found no non frivolous issues to present on appeal and noted additionally that under La C P Cr art 881 a defendant cannot appeal a sentence imposed in conformity with A 2 a plea agreement that was set forth in the record at the time ofthe plea and that no 11 motion to reconsider sentence was filed See La P Cr C art E 1 881 Accordingly defense counsel requested that she be relieved from further briefing and has filed a motion to withdraw Counsel certified that copies of defense counsel brief and motion to s withdraw were sent to the defendant by defense counsel Further defense counsel informed defendant that he had the right to file a brief on his own behalf The defendant has not filed a pro se brief with this Court This Court has conducted an independent review of the entire record in this case and we have found no reversible errors under La C art 920 P Cr 2 Furthermore we conclude there are no non frivolous issues or trial court rulings that arguably support this appeal In fact the defendant received a very favorable plea bargainsentencing agreement Accordingly the defendant convictions s habitual offender adjudication and sentences are affirmed Defense counsel s motion to withdraw which has been held in abeyance pending the disposition of this matter is hereby granted HABITUAL OFFENDER CONVICTIONS ADJUDICATION SENTENCES AFFIRMED MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED 61 AND
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
