State Of Louisiana VS Fredrick Jermaine Taylor
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DF FC PL qTFD iAT SIG R BLIC ION I 1 aL i l 65k d i Citl O I TC iT iTd I v E 1 ii b tl 6 G s kk Y R SIA kTI i C iA G RSiJS VE a FREDRICI JER AYLOR IE v1A Judgment Rendered Apri126 2013 cY 1xn Appe fr tlae teenth dicial s Nin Ju Durt t ra In and for t Pdcish of Ba f r t3n Zc uge State c siaroa u L eZt C e 1 ii 1 onc3rabl nae nJud zdax Ioz acksc eFx Hillar C Moore III el i air u for E 11ee Ap I tif District tat f c rana ux Elttorney Ba2on Rouge LA Monisa L Thompson Assistant District Attorney Baton Rouge LA Frederick Kroenke roject Appellate I Baton Rouge LA Louisiana Fredrick Jermaine Taylor ansel C or Defendant Appellant k Fredri Jerrnaine Taylor In i per or rcLr Angola LA IZ IDF RRI t EF GC C1 J i ti YT T l GUIDRY J The defendant Fredrick Jermaine T was charged by grand jury aylor indictment with second de r a violation of La R 1430 He pled ree iurder S 1 not guilty ancl waived his right to a jury tri Following a bench trial he was al found guilty as charged The defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment at hard labor without the benefit of probation parole or suspension of sentence He did not appeal in a timely manner but was granted an out appeal For the time of following reasons we affirm the defendant conviction and sentence and we s grant defense counsePs motion to withdraw FACTS On September 4 2009 the defend rode his bicycle to The Haven at nt Windermere assisted living facility in Baton Rouge the victim place of s employment and entered the kitchen through the back door He approached the victim who was also his girlfriend and said I told you I was going to get you The defendant then attacked the victim stabbing her thirty times During the one attack one of the victim coworkers tried to stop the defendant by jumping on his s back but he threw her off and continued stabbing the victim Other cowarkers threw wooden chairs at the defendant in an attempt to stop the attack Witnesses described the defendant as possessed determined and outraged When the defendant finally stcqpped stabbing ihe victim he walked out of the building like nothing had happened He was apprehended by a police officer after the attack and stated I stabbed my old lady At trial the defendant tzsti that he and the victixn had been in a l e relationship for seven years and had a child together He testified that he and the victim had been arguing in the days prior to the attack and that he attempted to call the victim approximately one times the hundred night before the attack According to the defendant he went to the victim place of employment on the s Z morning of the attack thinking that he was iust going to go see her because he had not seen her in a couple of days However he admitted that he rode his bicycle a long distance from his apartment to the victim place of employment and s brought the knife used in the at with him in order to do what he did The acl defendant adinitted that he stabbr e victim anci testified that he w have also dt ould killed himself if he v have made it hor efore being apprehended by the ould e police DISCUSSION Defense counsel has filed a motion to withdraw from the case In accordance with the procedures outlined in Anders v California 386 U 738 S 45 Ct 18 Ed 744 87 S 1400 L 493 1967 State v Jyles 96 pp 2 1396 2d 2669 La 9 3 12 704 So 2d 241 241 per curiam and State v Benjamin 573 7 42 So 2d 528 529 La App 4th Cir 1990 defense counsel has filed a supporting brief to the motion to withdraw The motion to withdraw argues that after a diligent and conscientious review of the ecord he has found no non frivolous issues for appeal Defense counsel has notified the defendant of Yhe filing of this motion and informed him of his right to file a pro se brief on his own behal The defendant has filed a pro se brief with this court In his sole pro se assignment of error the defendant raises an ineffective assistance claim regarding his competency The defendant notes that defense counsel was aware of his mental illness but failed to investigate the matter A claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is more properly raised by an application for postconviction relief in the district court where a full evidentiary hearing may be conducted However where the record discloses sufficient In State v Mouton 95 p 1 4 653 Se 2d 1176 1177 per curiam the 0981 La 28 95 Louisiana Supreme Court sanctioned the procedures utlined in Benjamin fox use by 4he appellate courts of Y See Jvles 96 at p 1 704 So 2d at 241 ouisiana 2669 3 evidence to decide the issu of in asaistance of counsel when raised by ffective assignment of error on appeal it may be addressEd in the interest of judicial economy State Carter 96 p 1Q La App lst Cir 11 684 So 2d 0337 96 8 432 438 A af th recc including the minute entrie rev that the review rd als smental statx w ne przsentec as an issue k the district court defendant s s er e efo The defenaant allegations oY irae as regarding his s fective istance competency and mental state relate to pretrial and trial preparation and strategy Decisions relating to investigation preparation and strategy cannot possibly be reviewed on appeal Only in an evidentiary hearing in the district court where the defendant could present evidence beyond what is contained in the instant record could these allegations be sufficiently investigated Thus these allegations are not subject to appellate review See State v Albert 6 p ll App lst Cir 1991 La 97 20 6 697 So 2d 1355 136 State v 1Vlartin 607 So 2d 775 788 La 64 App lst Cir 1992 Accordingly the pro se assignment Qf error claiming ineffectiveness of counsel is not subject to appellate review See State v Allen 1941 La 94 p 8 App lst Cir 11 664 So 2d 1264 1271 writ denied 95 95 9 2946 La 3 669 So 2d 433 96 15 This court has performed an independent thorough review of the pleadings minute entries indictment and transcripts in the appeal record The defendant was properly charged by grand jury indictment with a violation af La R 1430 and S 1 the indictment was sigz by am assistant district attorney ed The defendant vas present and represented by counsel at the iriitial arraignment bench trial and sentencing The sentence imposed is legal in all respects See State v Benjamin 573 So 2d at 531 Furthermore we have found nu reversible errors under Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure article 920 Our independent review 2 reveals no non issues or district court rulings that arguably support this frivolous appeal Accardingly the defendant sconvzction and sentence far second degree 4 murdzr are ns if aYfim I ni ti ana tbciraw wkaich has been held in abeyance en disp k rhis na as Y g sit ttrr s r tiran teci CONVICTION TD Ai NG TE E WITHDRAW GRANTED 5 1 TUTI0i IRNIED F I TO
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.
