State Of Louisiana VS Frank Charles Smith, Jr.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT NO. 2018 KA 0744 STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS FRANK CHARLES SMITH Judgment Rendered: NOV 0 6 2018 On Appeal from The 181h Judicial District Court, Parish of Pointe Coupee, State of Louisiana Trial Court No. 80, 850- F The Honorable J. Kevin Kimball, Judge Presiding Richard J. Ward Jr. Attorneys for Appellee, District Attorney State of Louisiana New Roads, Louisiana and Terri Russo Lacy Assistant District Attorney Port Allen, Louisiana Bertha M. Hillman Attorney for Defendant/Appellant, Louisiana Appellate Project Frank Charles Smith Jr. Covington, Louisiana BEFORE: McDONALD, CRAIN, AND HOLDRIDGE, JJ. CRAIN, J. The defendant, Frank Charles Smith Jr., pled guilty to simple burglary in exchange for a ten-year sentence and the state' s agreement to forego habitual offender proceedings and nol pros three counts of simple burglary. See La. R.S. 14: 62. The defendant was sentenced to ten years imprisonment at hard labor. The defendant appeals. We affirm the conviction and sentence. FACTS Because the defendant pled guilty, the facts were not developed. According to the bill of information, the defendant committed four counts of simple burglary in Pointe Coupee Parish from April 27 to May 5 of 2016. DISCUSSION The brief filed by defense counsel contains no assignments of error and was filed in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S. Ct. 1396; 14009 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 ( 1967), and State v. Jyles, 96- 2669 ( La. 12/ 12/ 97), 704 So. 2d 241 ( per curiam). In Anders, the United States Supreme Court instructed that if counsel finds the defendant' s case to be wholly frivolous, after a conscientious examination, he should so advise the court and request permission to withdraw. Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400. That request must, however, be accompanied by a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal. A copy of counsel' s brief should be furnished to the indigent, who should be allowed time to raise any points he chooses; the court, not counsel, then decides whether the case is wholly frivolous based upon a full examination of all the proceedings. Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400. In Jyles, the Louisiana Supreme Court approved the procedures outlined in State v. Benjamin, 573 So. 2d 528 ( La. App. 4 Cir. 1990), to comply with Anders. Appellate counsel must not only review the procedural history of the case and the evidence presented at trial, but his brief must also contain " a detailed and 2 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 State v. Mouton, 95- 0981 ( La. 4/ 28/ 95), 653 So. 2d 1176, 1177 ( per curiam)). 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. State v. Thomas, 12- 0177 ( La. App. 1 Cir. 12/ 28/ 12), 112 So. 3d 875, 878 ( en banc). Here, defense counsel complied with the requirements for an Anders brief. She reviewed the procedural history and facts of the case, recognized the defendant is precluded from challenging his sentence, frivolous issues for appeal. and concluded there are no non - A copy of the brief was provided to the defendant, and, in a motion to withdraw, defense counsel confirms the defendant was informed of his right to file a pro se brief on his own behalf. The defendant has not filed a pro se brief. This court has conducted an independent review of the record, including a review for error under Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure article 920( 2). That review reveals no non -frivolous issues or trial court rulings that arguably support the defendant' s appeal.' The defendant' s conviction and sentence are affirmed, and the motion to withdraw is granted. CONVICTION AND SENTENCE AFFIRMED; MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED. 1 Our review of the guilty -plea colloquy is subject to the constraints of State v. Collins, 14- 1461 ( La. 2/ 27/ 15), 159 So. 3d 1040 ( per curiam), and State v. Guzman, 99- 1528, 99- 1753 ( La. 5/ 16/ 00), 769 So. 2d 1158, 1162. K
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.
