State Of Louisiana VS Darrell Bates
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT 2012 KA 1149 STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS DARRELL BATES udgment Rendered APR 2 6 2013 On Appeal from the Nineteenth Judicial District Court In and for the Parish of East Baton Rouge State of Louisiana No 07 0259 10 Honorable Donald R Johnson Judge Presiding Hillar C Moore Counsel for Appellee District State of Louisiana Attorney Baton Rouge Louisiana William K Morris Monisa L Thompson Assistant District Attorneys Baton Rouge Louisiana Jane L Beebe New Orleans BEFORE Counsel for Defendant Appellant Louisiana WHIPPLE C McCLENDON 7 Darrell Bates AND HIGGINBOTHAM JJ McCLENDON J Defendant Darrell Bates was charged by bill of information with one count of failure to register as a sex offender a violation of LSA 15 S1 R 542 4 He initially entered a plea of not guilty The state subsequently amended the bill of information to correct the dates of defendant offense s and defendant withdrew his former plea of not guilty and pled guilty as charged He waived his sentencing delays and the trial court sentenced defendant to two years at hard labor without benefit of parole probation or suspension of sentence For the following reasons we affirm defendant conviction and sentence Additionally s we grant defense counsel motion to withdraw s FACTS According to the factual basis offered by the state at the time of his plea and sentencing defendant had previously been convicted in Texas of aggravated sexua assault of a child under fourteen and sexual assault He then moved to Louisiana in 2000 but he failed to respond to address verification cards sent to his address between 2001 and 2007 Defendant was arrested in July 2007 but he was subsequently released However he again failed to comply with registration and notification requirements between his release and 2010 leading to his re On February 4 2010 defendant was again released from prison arrest and ordered to register by the court At that time he listed an address in Ohio as his residence When sheriff deputies called defendant purported residence s s in Ohio on February 24 2010 he had not reported there Defendant was arrested for the final time in May 2010 ISSUES PRESENTED The defense brief contains no assignments of error and sets forth that it is filed to conform with State v yles 96 La 12 704 So 241 2669 97 2d per curiam wherein the Louisiana Supreme Court approved the procedures outlined in State v Benjamin 573 So 528 La 4 Cir 1990 2d App Benjamin set forth a procedure to comply with Anders v California 386 U S 738 744 87 S 1396 1400 18 L 493 1967 in which the United Ct 2d Ed 2 States Supreme Court discussed how appellate counsel should proceed when upon conscientious review of a case eounsel found the appeal would be wholly frivolous Benjamin has repeatedly been cited with approval by the Louisiana Supreme Court See yles 704 So at 241 State v Mouton 95 La 2d 0981 95 28 4 653 So 1176 1177 per curiam State v Royals 600 So 653 2d 2d La 1992 In the instant case defense counsel reviewed the procedural history of the case in her brief She set forth that after a conscientious and thorough review of the record in this case she has found no non issues to frivolous present on appeal Accordingly defense counsel requested that she be relieved from further briefing and has moved to withdraw as counsel of record Defendant who represented himself before the trial court has been informed of his right to file a pro se brief in this matter but he has made no such filing with this Court We have conducted an independent review of the entire record in this case and have found no reversible errors under LSA art 920 P Cr C 2 Furthermore we conclude that there are no non issues or trial court frivolous rulings that arguably support this appeal Accordingly defendant conviction s and sentence are hereby affirmed Defense counsel motion to withdraw which s has been held in abeyance pending the disposition of this matter is hereby granted AND CONVICTION WITHDRAW GRANTED SENTENCE 3 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.
