State Of Louisiana VS Emilio Debram
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT NUMBER 2015 KA 0662 STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS EMILIO DEBRAM Judgment Rendered: · NOV 0 9 2015 On appeal from the Nineteenth Judicial District Court In and for the Parish of East Baton Rouge State ofLouisiana Docket Number 05-14-0830 Honorable Anthony J. Marabella, Jr., Judge Hillar C. Moore, III Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellee District Attorney State ofLouisiana Baton Rouge, LA Dale R. Lee Assistant District Attorney Baton Rouge, LA Frederick Kroenke Counsel for Defendant/Appellant Appellate Attorney Emilio Debram Baton Rouge, LA BEFORE: GUIDRY, HOLDRIDGE, AND CHUTZ, JJ. GUIDRY,J. The defendant, Emilio Debram, was charged by superseding bill of information with stalking in violation of a protective order, a violation of La. R.S. 14:40.2B(3). He entered a plea ofguilty pursuant to a plea agreement with the State 1 wherein other charges filed against him were dismissed, and the State agreed not to file a habitual offender bill. Pursuant to the agreement, the defendant was sentenced to nine months in parish prison and ordered to sign.a lifetime abuse prevention order. The defendant now appeals. For the following re~sons, we affirm the defendant's conviction and sentence, and we grant defense counsel's motion to withdraw. FACTS Because the defendant pied guilty, the facts of his offense were not fully developed. According to the bill .of information, Boykin2 colloquy, and police reports, on March 30, 2014, around 7 : 1 p.m., officers with the Baton Rouge Police 2 Department were dispatched in response to a reported disturbance at 3170 Elgin Street. 3 Officers spoke with the victim, Debra Chretien, who was formerly married to the defendant. Chretien informed officers that she was fearful of her life due to the defendant's criminal history and violent tendencies. According to Chretien, the defendant repeatedly called her cellular telephone and drove by her house and other places that she frequents prior to March 30, 2014, and on that day, the defendant called Chretien and asked her to come to the Baton Rouge General Hospital, where 1 The defendant was originally charged with improper telephone communications, a violation of La. R.S. 14:285 ( count I) and violation ofa protective order, a violation of La. R.S. 14:79 ( count 2). 2 3 Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969). While the Baton Rouge Police Department incident report lists the dispatch time as 7:21 p.m., the affidavit of probable cause indicates that officers with the Baton Rouge Police Department were dispatched to this address at 6:45 p.m. 2 he was being treated after "falling ill due to alcohol intake." An officer drove to the hospital and, after the defendant was discharged, placed him under arrest. DISCUSSION The defense briefcontains no assignments oferror and sets forth that it is filed in conformity 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. Benjamin, 573 So. 2d 528 ( La. App. 4th 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 conscientious 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 p. 1, 704 So. 2d at 241; State v. Mouton, 95-0981, p. 1 ( La. 4/28/95), 653 So. 2d 1176, 1177 (per curiam); State v. Royals, 600 So. 2d 653 ( La. 1992). Defense counsel has reviewed the procedural history of the case in his brief. He contends that after a review ofthe record in this case, he has found no non-frivolous errors to present on appeal. He notes that there were no pre-trial rulings in this case and that the defendant was advised of his constitutional rights at the time of his plea. No pretrial rulings were preserved for appeal under State v. Crosby, 338 So. 2d 584, 588 La. 1976), and the defendant has not claimed that his plea was not knowingly and voluntarily given. This court has conducted an independ~nt review of the entire record in this matter, including a review for error under Louisiana-Code ·of Criminal Procedure article 920(2). We recognize that our review of the guilty-plea colloquy is subject to the restraints of State v. Collins, 14-1461, p. 1(La.2/27/15), 159 So. 3d 1040 ( per curiam) and State v. Guzman, 99-1528, pp. 6-7 ( La. 5/16/00), 769 So. 2d 1158, 3 1162. Our independent review reveals no non-frivolous issues or trial court rulings that arguably support the defendant's appeal. Accordingly, the defendant's conviction and sentence are affirmed. Defense counsel's motion to withdraw, which has been held in abeyance pending disposition ofthis matter, is hereby granted. CONVICTION AND SENTENCE WITHDRAW GRANTED. 4 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.
