State Of Louisiana VS Daniel Hinton

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOtlISIANA COURT OF APPEAL rTRST CIRC 1' f N0. 2013 KA 0695 STATE OF LOUISIANA n VERSUS DANIEL HINTON J Judgment rendered December 27, 2013. Appealed from the 19th Judicial District Court r in and for the Parish of East Baton Rouge, Louisiana Trial Court No. 11- 12- 0079 Honorable Richard D. Ar derson, Judge HON. HILLAR C. MOORE, III ATTORNEYS FOR DISfRICT ATTORNEY STATE OF LOUISIANA OHN W. RUSSELL, N MONISA L. 7HOMPSON ASSISTANT DISTRICr ATTORNEYS BATON ROUGE, LA LIEU T. VO CLARK ATTORNEY FOR MANDEVILLE, LA DEFENDANT- APPELLANT DANIEL HINTON BEFORE: PETTIGREW, McDONALD, AND McCLENDON, 7J. PEITIGREW, J. Defendant, Daniel Hinton, was charged by biil of information with aggravated battery, a violation of La. R.. R. S. 14: 64 ( count two). He 14; 3 f ount or. ;, and armed robbery, a violation of La. e initialiy pfed not guolty. After the State dismissed the charge on count two, defendant withdrew hos former plea of not guilty and entered a plea of guilty to the charge on count one. The tria! court sentenced him to five years at hard labor. Defendant filed a motion to reconsider senfence, but that motion was denied by the trial court. For the following reasons, we affirm defendanYs conviction and sentence. Additionally, we grant defense counsel' s motion to withdraw. FACTS Because defendant pled guilty, the facts of his offense were not developed at trial. At defendant's plea and sentencing hearing, he stipulated to the following circumstances as a factual basis for his offense. On or about August 21, 2012, at approximately 8: 30 p. m., deputies with the East Baton Rouge Parish Sheriffs Office were dispatched to Skysail Avenue, in the Gardere area in reference to multiple subjects engaged in a fight. Upon their arrival, the officers made contact with the victim, who advised them that defendant " jumped" him while armed with a knife and accompanied by a cohort who was armed with a stick. Defendant and his accomplice were able to take some kennis shoes, a cell phone, and some cash from the victim' s person. At some point, however, the victim was able to gain an advantage in the physical altercation, causing the two attackers to leave the area. Subsequent investigation revealed that there had been prior issues between defendant and the victim, but the investigating detective expressed doubt about whether anything was actually taken from the vicCim. However, defendant did admit on audiotape that he did " jump'° the victim while armed with a knife. ISSUES PRESENTED The defense brief contains no assignments af error and sets forth that it is filed to conform with State v. Jyles, 96- 2669 ( La. 12/ 12/ 97), 704 So. 2d 241 ( per curiam), wherein the Louisiana Supreme Court approved the procedures outlined in State v. 2 Benjamin, 573 So. 2d 528 ( La. App. 4 Cir. 1990). Benjamin set forth a procedure to comply with Anders v. California, 386 U. S. 738, 744, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400, 18 L.Ed. 2d 493 ( 1967), in which the United States Supreme Court discussed how appellate counsel should proceed when, upon conscienti us review of a case, counsel finds an appeal would be wholly frivolous. Benjamin has repeatedly been cited with approval by the Louisiana Supreme Court. See Jyles, 96- 2669 at 1, 704 So. 2d at 241; State v. Mouton, 95- 0981, pp. 1- 2 ( La. 4/ 28/ 95), 653 So. 2d 1176, 1177 ( per curiam); State v. Royals, 600 So. 2d 653 ( La. 1992). In the instant case, defense counsel reviewed the procedural history of the case in her brief. She set forth that, after a review of the record in this case, she has found no non- frivolous issues to present on appeal. Defense counsel specifically notes that she has reviewed the transcript of defendant's guilty plea and found no infirmities in the colloquy. Further, she notes that although defendant did file a motion to reconsider sentence, the trial court sentenced defendant in accordance with an oral sentencing agreement between the State and defense that included an agreement not to bill defendant as a third- felony habitual offender. l Accordingly, defense counsel requested that she be relieved from further briefing, and she has filed a motion to withdraw. In her motion to withdraw, defense counsel asserts that defendant was informed of his right to file his own brief in this matter. Defendant has not filed a pro se brief with this court. This court has performed an independent, thorough review of the pleadings, minute entries, bill of information, and transcript in the appeal record. Our independent review reveals no non- frivolous issues or trial court rulings that arguably support this appeal. a rmed. Accordingly, defendant's conviction and sentence for aggravated battery are Defense counsel' s motion to withdraw, which has been held in abeyance pending disposition of this matter, is granted. CONVICTION AND SENTENCE AFFIRMED; MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED. Although defendanYs prior offenses are not detailed in the record, the State represented at defendanYs guilty plea and sentencing hearing that they were crimes of violence that, im m nection with the instant ofFense, would make defendant eligible for the mandatory habitual offender sentence of life imprisonment at hard labor, without the benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence. 3

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.