APPEAL FROM THE TWENTY-FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH
OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF LOUISIANA NO. 14-2790, DIVISION
"O" HONORABLE DANYELLE M. TAYLOR, JUDGE PRESIDING
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE, STATE OF LOUISIANA Paul D.
Connick, Jr. Terry M. Boudreaux Thomas J. Butler.
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT, ARNOLD H. VANCE Jane L.
DEFENDANT/APPELLANT. Arnold Vance In Proper Person.
composed of Judges Robert M. Murphy, Stephen J. Windhorst,
and Hans J. Liljeberg.
M. MURPHY JUDGE.
Arnold Vance, appeals his conviction and sentence for first
degree robbery. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the
conviction and sentence and remand with instructions. We
further grant appellate counsel's motion to withdraw as
attorney of record.
OF THE CASE
28, 2014, the Jefferson Parish District Attorney's office
("the State") filed a bill of information charging
defendant with one count of first degree robbery in violation
of La. R.S. 14:64.1. On July 29, 2014, defendant pled not
guilty at arraignment. On March 24, 2015, defendant withdrew
his not guilty plea, pled guilty as charged, and was
sentenced to eight years imprisonment at hard labor without
benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence. On
January 20, 2017, defendant was granted an out-of-time
appeal. The instant appeal follows.
the instant conviction was a result of a guilty plea, the
underlying facts were not fully developed at trial. However,
at the time of defendant's guilty plea, the State
provided the following factual basis:
[S]hould this case proceed to trial, the State has sufficient
evidence to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that Arnold
Vance committed the felony offense of first degree robbery in
that he led the victim to reasonably believe he was armed
with a dangerous weapon to facilitate the robbery; that
robbery occurred on May 25th, 2014, within the confines of
Jefferson Parish, Louisiana.
the procedure adopted by this Court in State v.
Bradford, 95-929, pp. 3-4 (La.App. 5 Cir. 6/25/96), 676
So.2d 1108, 1110-11,  appointed appellate counsel has filed a
brief asserting that she has thoroughly reviewed the trial
court record and cannot find any non-frivolous issues to
raise on appeal. Accordingly, pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493
(1967) and State v. Jyles, ...