State Of Louisiana VS Rondale Simpson

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE F LOUISIANA COL? RT QF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT NO. 2013 KA 0725 STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS RONDALE SIMPSON Judgment Rendered: E 2 7 2 3 k r' f On Appeal from the 1, 19th 7udicial Ilistrict Court, r In and far the Parish of East Baton Rouge, State of Louisiana Trial Court No. 08- 09- 0432 Honarable Richard D. Anderson, Judge Presiding Hillar C. Moore III Attorneys for Plainriff= Appellee, District State t f Louisiana Attorney Monisa L. Thompson Assistant District Attorney Baton Rouge, LA Bertha M. Hillman Attorney for llefendant-Appellant, Thibodaux, LA Rondale Simpson BEFORE: KliHIv, HIGGINBOTHA1vI, AND THERIOT, JJ. HIGGINBOTHAM, J. The defendant, Rondale Simpson, was charged by grand jury indictment with armed robbery, a vioiation of Louisiana Revised Statutes section 14: 64 Count 1) and second degree murder9 a violation of Louisiana Revised Statutes section 1430. 1 ( Count 2). He initiall entered a plea of not guilty, but he later withdrew this plea and pled guilty as charged to Count 1 and no contest to the responsive offense of manslaughter, a violation of Louisiana Revised Statutes section 1431, on Count 2 pursuant to a, plea agreement with the State. Under this agreement, the defendant was sentenced to twenty years at hard labor without the benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence on Count 1 and twenty years at hard labor on Count 2. The district court ordered that the sentences run concurrently. The defendant did not appeal in a timely manner, but was granted an time out- of- For the following reasons, we affirm the defendant' s appeal. convictions and sentences, and we grant defense counsel' s motion to withdraw. FACTS The facts surrounding the defendant' s instant offenses were not fully developed in this case because the defendant pled guilty and no contest to the charged offenses. According to the indictment and the Boykin colloquy, on April 24, 2009, the defendant and two other individuals approached one of the victims, Frederick Wright, near the Brand wine Apartment Complex in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Whiie armed, the defendant and the two other individuals took Wright' s wallet, removed the money it contained, and threw the wallet into a dumpster nearby. Shortly after the robbery of Wright, the three individuals approached the vehicle of another victim, Theodore Lange, during an attempted drug transaction. One of them stood at the driver' s side of the vehicle, fired a gun, and killed Lange while the defendant entered the vehicle on the passenger' s side and put it into neutraL 2 DISC USSION Defense counsel has filed a brief containing no assignments of error and a motion to withdraw from this case. In her brief and motion to withdraw, refening to the procedures outlined in State v. Jyles, 96- 2669 ( La. 12/ 12/ 97), 704 So.2d 241, 241- 42 ( per curiam) and Anders v, California, 386 II.S. 738, 744- 45, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400, 18 L.F'- . 2d 493 ( 1967), defense counsel indicated that after a d conscientious and thorough review of the district court record, she could find no non- frivolous issues to raise on appeal. See also State v. Mouton, 95- 0981 ( La. 4/ 28/ 95), 653 So. 2d 1176, 1177 ( per curiam); State v. Benjamin, 573 Sa2d 528 La. App. 4th Cir. 1990). The Anders procedure followed in Louisiana was discussed in Benjamin, 573 So. 2d at 529- 31, sanctioned by the Louisiana Supreme Court in Mouton, 653 So.2d at 1177, and expanded by the Louisiana Supreme Court in Jyles. According to Anders, 386 U. S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400, " if counsel finds his case to be wholly frivolous, after a conscientious examination of it, he should so advise the court and request permission to withdraw." To comply with Jyles, appellate counsel must not only review the procedural history of the case and the evidence, but his brief also must contain " a detailed and reviewable assessment for both the defendant and the appellate court of whether the appeal is worth pursuing in the first place." Jyles, 704 So. 2d at 242 ( quoring Mouton, 653 So. 2d at 1177). When conducting a review for compliance with Anders, an appellate court must cqnduct an independent review of the record to determine whether the appeal is wholly frivolous. Herein, the brief filed on behalf of the defendant by defense counsel complied with all of the requirements necessary for an Anders brief. Defense counsel reviewed the procedural history and record of the case. Defense counsel noted that the guilty plea colloquv in this case reflects that the defendant was 3 informed of and agreed to th imposed sentences prior to entering his guilty plea. Citing Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure article 881. 2A(2), defense counsel noted that a defendant cannot appeal or seek review of a sentence imposed in conformity with a plea agreement set forth in the record at the time of the plea. Defense counsel concluded bn hez brief and mation to withdraw that there were no non- frivolous issues for Further, in her znotion to withdraw, defense appeal. counsel certified that the defendant was served with a copy of her motion to withdraw as counsel of recard, and was notified of his right to file a pro se brief. The defendant has not filed a pro se brief. This Court has conducted an independent review of the entire record in this matter, including a review for error under Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure article 920( 2). We have found no reversible errors in this case. See State v. Price, 2005- 2514 ( La. App. 1 st Cir. 12/ 28/ 06), 952 So. 2d 112, 123- 25 ( en banc), writ denied, 2007- 0130 ( La. 2/ 22/ 08), 976 So. 2d 1277. Furthermare, our review revealed no non- frivolous issues or district court rulings that arguably support this appeal. Accordingly, the defendant' s convictions and sentences are affirmed. Further, defense counsel' s motion to withdraw is hereb, granted. y CONVICTIONS AND SENTENCES WITHDRAW GRANTED. 4 AFFIRMED; MOTION 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.