State Of Louisiana VS Bobby Ray Brown
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PL'BLICATION T STATE C) F L.OUISIANA COLTRT UF PPEAL. FIRS'T CIRCUIT i"" NO 2013 KA 1213 STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS BOBBY RAY BROWN Judgment Rendered: FE 1$' f On Appeal from The 19`" Judicial District Court, In and for the Parish of East Baton Rouge, State of Lonisiana Trial Coux-t No. l 1- ll-0120 The Honorable Louis R. Daniel, Judge Presiding Hillar C. Moore, III Attorney for Plaintiff/Appellee, District State of Louisiana Attorney Baton Rouge, Louisiana Frederick Kroenke Baton Rouge, Louisiana Attorney for Defendant/Appellant, Bobby Ray Brown BEFORE: WHIPPLE, C. J., WELCH, AND CRAIN, JJ. CRAIN, J. Defendant, Bobby Aay Brown, was charged by amended bill of information with violation of a protective order, a violation of Louisiana Revised Statute 14: 79C( 3). He initially pled not guilty. Following jury selection and the trial testimony of one witness, defendant advised the trial court th t he wished to withdraw his former plea of not guilty and enter a plea of guilty as charged. The trial court accepted defendant' s guilty plea and sentenced him to serve four years at hard labor, without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence. We affirm defendant' s conviction and sentence, and grant defense counsel' s motion to withdraw. FACTS The facts surrounding the instant offense were not fully developed because the defendant pled guilty to the charged offense. However, the record establishes that on October 16, 2010, defendant went to the home of his ex- girlfriend, Madonna Lout, in violation of a valid restraining order. The couple argued, and defendant hit Lout in the face. DISCUSSION Defense counsel has filed a motion to withdraw from this case and, in accordance with the procedures outlined in Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400, 18 L.Ed. 2d 493 ( 1967), State v. Jyles, 96- 2669 ( La. 12/ 12/ 97), 704 So. 2d 241 (per curiam), and State v. Benjamin, 573 So. 2d 528 La. App. 4 Cir. 1990), filed a brief setting forth that he has reviewed the record in this case and found no non- frivolous issues to present on appeal. Defense counsel' s brief outlines the procedural history of the case, and raises no issues regarding defendant' s plea colloquy. Additionally, defense counsel recognizes that defendant may not appeal or seek review of his sentence as it was imposed in conformity with an oral agreement between defendant and the State which was set 2 forth in the record at the time of his plea. See La, Code Crim. Pro. art. 881. 2A(2). In his motion to withdraw, iefenae counsel states Yhat he notified defendant of his right to file a brief in this matter; however, no ro se brief has been filed. This court has performed an independent, tharough review of the pleadings, minute entries; bill of information, and tirans ript in ihe appellate record.l Our independent review reveals no rion- frivolous issues or district court rulings that arguably support this appeal. Accordingly, defendant' s conviction and sentence for violation of a protective arder are affirmed. Defense counsel' s motion to withdraw is granted. CONVICTION AND SENTENCE AFFIRMED; MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED. 1 We note that the trial court granted defendant' s pro se motion for appeal, despite it being filed more than tlurty days afrer his conviction and sentence. See La. Code Crim. Pro. art. 914B( 1) ( setting time iimitations for for Instead of dismissing defendant' s appeal as untimely only to have the trial court later grant defendant a motion for out-of-time motions appeal). appeal, we maintained defendant' s instant appeal in the interest ofjudicial economy. 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.
