State Of Louisiana VS Tony Archie
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT 2014 KA 0365 STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS TONY J. ARCHIE Judgment Rendered: NOV 0 7 2014 ***** On Appeal from the 19th Judicial District Court In and for the Parish of East Baton Rouge State of Louisiana No. 08-10-0417 The Honorable Bonnie Jackson, Judge Presiding ***** Hillar C. Moore, III District Attorney Dale R. Lee Assistant District Attorney Baton Rouge, Louisiana Attorneys for Plaintiff/Appellee, State of Louisiana Prentice L. White Baton Rouge, Louisiana Attorney for Defendant/Appellant, Tony Archie ***** BEFORE: GUIDRY, THERIOT, AND DRAKE, JJ. DRAKE,J. The defendant, Tony J. Archie, was charged by bill of information (as amended) with felony carnal knowledge of a juvenile, a violation of La. R.S. 14:80. 1 The defendant withdrew his former plea of not guilty, and pied guilty to the amended charge. The defendant was sentenced to six years imprisonment at hard labor. The trial court denied the defendant's motion to reconsider sentence. He now appeals. Contending that there are no non-frivolous issues to argue on appeal, the defense counsel filed a brief on behalf of the defendant raising no assignments of error and requesting a routine review for error pursuant to La. Code Crim. P. art. 920(2). The defense counsel also filed a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. For the following reasons, we affirm the conviction and sentence and grant the defense counsel's motion to withdraw. STATEMENT OF FACTS Since the defendant entered a plea of guilty, the facts were not fully developed in this case. At the time of the guilty plea, the trial court accepted the factual basis set forth by the State. According to the factual basis accepted in 2 support of the guilty plea, on March 29, 2008, the mother of R.C. (the sixteen- year-old victim who is the defendant's step-niece) returned to her residence and detected the occurrence of an inappropriate encounter between the defendant and the victim. The police were called, and they interviewed the victim and several family members and/or potential witnesses. While she initially denied any encounter, the victim ultimately admitted that she and the defendant had The defendant was originally charged with four counts of aggravated incest, violations of La. R.S. 14:78.1. On the date of the defendant's guilty plea, the State amended count one and dismissed the remaining counts. 2 According to the bill of information, the victim's date of birth is October 30, 1991. We reference this victim only by her initials or "the victim." See La. R.S. 46: l 844(W). 2 consensual sexual relations several times over the period of time indicated in the amended bill of information. 3 ANDERS BRIEF The defense counsel has filed a brief containing no assignments of error and a motion to withdraw. In the brief and motion to withdraw, referring to the procedures outlined in State v. Jyles, 96-2669 (La. 12/12/97), 704 So.2d 241 (per curiam), counsel indicated that after a conscientious and thorough review of the record, he could find no non-frivolous issues to raise on appeal and could find no trial court rulings that would support the appeal. The procedure in Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), as used in Louisiana, was discussed in State v. Benjamin, 573 So.2d 528, 529-31 (La. App. 4th Cir. 1990), sanctioned by the Louisiana Supreme Court in State v. Mouton, 95-0981 (La. 4/28/95), 653 So.2d 1176, 1177 (per curiam), and expanded by the Louisiana Supreme Court in Jyles, 704 So.2d at 242. According to Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S.Ct. at 1400, "if counsel finds his case to be wholly 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 review not only the procedural history of the case and the evidence presented at trial, but must also provide "a detailed and reviewable assessment for both the defendant and the appellate court of whether the appeal is worth pursuing in the first place." Jyles, 704 So.2d at 242 (quoting Mouton, 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 defense counsel has complied with all the requirements necessary to file an Anders brief. The defense counsel has reviewed the procedural 3 According to the original bill of information, the offenses began in June of 2007. 3 history and facts of the case. The defense counsel concludes in his brief that there are no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Further, the defense counsel certifies that the defendant was served with a copy of the Anders brief and motion to withdraw as counsel of record. The defense counsel's motion to withdraw notes the defendant has 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. As noted by defense counsel, the trial court thoroughly questioned and 4 informed the defendant of his Boykin rights (right to trial by jury, right against compulsory self-incrimination, and right of confrontation) prior to the acceptance of the guilty plea, and the defendant indicated that he understood and waived his rights. The trial court further set forth the statutory elements and range of sentence for the offense. Further, the defendant confirmed that he had not been intimidated, forced, or coerced to plead guilty. 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(2). We have found no reversible errors in this case. Furthermore, we agree with the defense counsel's assertion that there are no nonfrivolous issues or trial court rulings that arguably support this appeal. Accordingly, the defendant's conviction and sentence are affirmed. The defense counsel' s motion to withdraw is granted. AFFIRMED; SENTENCE AND CONVICTION COUNSEL'S MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED. 4 Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969). 4 DEFENSE
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.
