State Of Louisiana VS Christopher Lloyd Maricle
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA C URT F APPEAL FTRST CIRCIlYT N0. 2013 KA 1725 STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS CHRISTOPHER LLOYD MARICLE udgment rendered MAR 2 1 0 lV Appealed from the 22nd Ud'ICldl D'IStI' iCt COUrt in and for the Parish of St. Tammany, Louisiana Trial Court No. 506844 Honorable Ailison H. Penzato, Judge WALTER P. REED ATfORNEYS FOR DISTRICT ATTORNEY STATE OF LOUISIANA COVINGTON, LA KATHRYN W. LANDRY SPECIAL APPEALS COUNSEL BATON ROUGE, LA LIEU T. VO CLARK ATTORNEY FOR MANDEVILLE, tA DEFENDANT-APPELLANT CHRISTOPHER LLOYD MARICLE BEFORE: PETTIGREW, McDONALD, AND McCLENDON, 7J. PETTIGREW, J. The defendant, Christopher Lloyd Maricle, was charged by amended grand jury indictment with sejcual battery, a violation of La. R.S. 14: 43. 1 ( Caunt 1) and indecent behavior with juveniles, a violation La. R. S. 14: 81 ( Counts 2 and 3). of entered a plea of not guilty, but later pursuant to a plea agreement. He initially rithdrew th s pl a and pled guilty as charged Under this agreement, the defendant was sentenced to twenty-five years at hard labor without the benefit of parole on Count 1. On Counts 2 and 3, he was sentenced to seven years, at hard labor, on each count. The district court ordered that the sentences run concurrently. The defendant did not appeal in a timely manner, but was granted an out-of-time appeal. For the following reasons, we affirm the defendant's convictions and sentences and grant defense counsel' s motion to withdraw, FACTS The facts of this case were not fully developed because the defendant pled guilty. According to the indictment and the Boykin colloquy, the defendant engaged in indecent behavior with two juvenile victims between September 1, 2010, and March 16, 2011, and March 1, 2011, and March 10, 2011, On March 30, 2011, the defendant was involved with a third juvenile victim and charged with sexual battery. DISCUSSION 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, referring to the procedures outlined in State v. Jyles, 96- 2669, pp. 2- 3 ( La. 12/ 12/ 97), 704 So. 2d 241, 241- 242 ( per curiam) and Anders v. California, 386 U. S. 738, 744-745, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 ( 1967), defense counsel indicated that after a conscientious and thorough review of the district court record, she couid find no non- frivolous issues to raise on appeal. See also State v. Mouton, 95- 0981, pp. 1- 2 ( La. 4/ 28/ 95), 653 So.2d 1176, 1177 ( per curiam); State v. Benjamin, 573 So. 2d 528, 529- 531 ( La. App. 4 Cir. 1990). 1 The Anders procedure followed in Louisiana was discussed in Benjamin, sanctioned by the Louisiana Supreme Court in Mouton, and expanded by the Louisiana Supreme Court in ] yles. 2 According to Anders; "if counse finds his ase to be wholly frivolous, after a conscientious examination of lt, he should so advise tha caurt a; d request permission to Anders, 386 U. S. at 44, 87 S. Ct. at a40p. To com ly with Jyles, appellate withdraw." counsel must not only review r cedurai histQry of he case and the evidence, but th their brief also must contain " a d tailed ar d revoewable assessment for both the defendant and the appeilate court of whe her tF e appeal is worth pursuing in the first place." ] yles, 96- 2669 at 3, 704 So.2d at 242 ( quoting Mouton, 95- 0981 at 2, 653 So.2d at 1177). When 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. Herein, the brief filed on behalf of the defendant by defense counsel complied with the requirements record of the of case. Anders. Defense counsel reviewed the procedural history and Defense counsel noted that the guilty plea colloquy in this case reflects that the defendant was informed of and agreed to the imposed sentences prior to entering his guilty plea. Citing La. Code Crim. P, art. 881. 2( A)( 2), defense counsel noted that a defendant cannot appeal or seek review of a sentence imposed in conformity with a plea forth in the record agreement set at the time of the plea. Defense counsel concluded in her brief and motion to withdraw that there were no non- frivolous issues for appeal. Further, defense counsel certified that the defendant was served with a copy of her brief and motion to withdraw as counsel of record, 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 La. Code Crim. P. art. 920( 2j. We have found no reversible errors in this case. See State v, Price; 2005- 2514, pp. 18- 22 ( La. App. 1 Cir. 12/ 28/ 06), 952 So.2d 112, 123- 125 ( en bancj, writ denied, 2007-0130 ( La. 2/ 22/ 08), 976 So. 2d 1277. Furthermore, our review revealed no non- frivolous issues or district court rulings that arguably support this appeai. Accordingly, the defendanYs convictions and sentences are affirmed. Further, defense counsel' s motion to withdraw is hereby granted. CONVICTIONS AND SENTENCES AFFIRMED; GRANTED. 3 MOTION TO WITHDRAW
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.
