State Of Louisiana VS Carl Johnson
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT 2012 KA 0811 STATE OF LOUISIANA K j 1 VERSUS i CARL OHNSON On Appeal from the 19th Judicial District Court Parish of East Baton Rouge Louisiana Docket No 7 Section 5 0463 08 Honorable Louis R Daniel Judge Presiding Hillar C Moore III Attorneys for Appellee District Attorney State of Louisiana Monisa L Thompson Assistant Distrid Attorney Baton Rouge LA Frederick Kroenke Louisiana Appellate Baton Rouge LA Projed Attorney for Appellant Defendant Carl ohnson BEFORE PARRO HUGHES AND WELCH 77 I udgment rendered DEC 3 1 2p 2 PARRO J The defendant Carl Johnson was originally charged by bill of information with four counts of armed robbery violations of LSA 14 In accordance with a plea S R 64 agreement the state dismissed count one as to the defendant and he withdrew his original not guilty pleas and entered a plea of guilty as charged to the remaining three counts As further agreed the trial court sentenced the defendant to twenty years two of imprisonment at hard labor without the benefit of probation parole or suspension of sentence on each count to be served concurrently The defendant filed a pro se motion for appeal and defense counsel filed a brief on behalf of the defendant raising no assignments of error and contending that there are no non issues to argue frivolous on appeal For the following reasons we affirm the convictions and sentences ANDERS BRIEF Defense counsel has filed a brief containing no assignments of error and a motion to withdraw In the motion to withdraw referring to the procedures outlined in State v Jyles 96 La 12 704 So 241 per curiam counsel indicated 2669 97 2d that after a review of the record and a diligent and conscientious effort he could find no non issues to raise on appeal frivolous The procedure in Anders v California 386 U 738 87 S 1396 18 S Ct 2d Ed L 493 1967 used in Louisiana was discussed in State v Benjamin 573 2d So 528 529 La App 4th Cir 1990 sanctioned by the Louisiana Supreme Court 31 in State v Mouton 95 La 4 653 So 1176 1177 per curiam and 0981 95 28 2d expanded by the Louisiana Supreme Court in Jyles 704 So at 242 According to 2d Anders 386 U at 744 87 S at 1400 if counsel finds his case to be wholly S Ct 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 presented at trial but his brief must also contain a detailed and reviewable assessment for both the defendant and the appellate court of whether the appeal is worth pursuing in the first In connedion with these offenses the defendant was charged in the same bill of information with several other defendants including Eric Franklin Rusty Dewayne ohnson and Kyle Wade Jones The record does not reflect any disposition on other codefendanks 2 place Jyles 704 So at 242 quoting State v Mouton 653 So at 1177 When 2d 2d conducting a review for compliance with Anders an appellate court must conduct an independent review of the record to determine whether the appeal is wholly frivolous In this matter defense counsel has complied with all the requirements necessary to file an Anders brief Defense counsel has reviewed the procedural history of the case and as noted by defense counsel the trial court im p osed the ag reed upon sentences recited by the state in open court before the acceptance of the defendant s guilty pleas The state further agreed to drop count one and not file a habitual offender bill of information The defendant was thoroughly questioned and informed of his Boykin rights right to trial by jury right against compulsory self and incrimination right of confrontation prior to the acceptance of the guilty pleas and indicated that he understood and waived his rights Defense counsel concludes in his brief that there are no frivolous non issues for appeal Further defense counsel certifies that the defendant was served with copies of the Anders brief and the motion to withdraw as counsel of record Defense counsel motion to withdraw notes that the defendant has s been informed of his right to file a pro se brief on his own behalf and 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 LSA Part 920 We have found no Cr C 2 reversible errors in this case Furthermore we agree with defense counsel assertion s that there are no non issues or trial court rulings that arguably support this frivolous appeal Accordingly the defendant convictions and sentences are affirmed Defense s s counsel motion to withdraw is granted CONVICTIONS AND SENTENCES MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED AFFIRMED DEFENSE S COUNSEL
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.
