APPEAL FROM THE TWENTY-FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH
OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF LOUISIANA NO. 16-2702, DIVISION
"H" HONORABLE GLENN B. ANSARDI, JUDGE PRESIDING
PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE, STATE OF LOUISIANA Paul D. Connick, Jr.
Terry M. Boudreaux Darren A. Allemand
DEFENDANT/APPELLANT, ERIC C. FONTENELLE Prentice L. White
DEFENDANT/APPELLANT, ERIC C. FONTENELLE In Proper Person
composed of Judges Marc E. Johnson, Robert A. Chaisson, and
Jessie M. LeBlanc, Judge Pro Tempore
AND REMANDED FOR CORRECTION OF COMMITMENT; MOTION TO WITHDRAW
M. LEBLANC, JUDGE PRO TEMPORE JUDGE.
Eric C. Fontenelle, appeals his convictions of two counts of
indecent behavior with a juvenile under thirteen.
Defendant's appointed counsel has filed an appellate
brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S.
738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967) and has filed a
motion to withdraw as counsel of record. Further, defendant
has filed a pro se supplemental brief assigning one
error. For the following reasons, we affirm defendant's
convictions and sentences and grant counsel's motion to
withdraw. We remand the matter for a correction as noted
OF THE CASE
4, 2016, the Jefferson Parish District Attorney filed a bill
of information charging defendant with two counts of indecent
behavior with a juvenile under thirteen in violation of La.
R.S. 14:81. On May 12, 2016, defendant pled not guilty at his
to trial, the trial court heard the State's oral motion
in limine regarding the admissibility of recorded jail calls
made by defendant. The parties stipulated that certain
statements would be played to the jury but that a portion
pertaining to a plea offer made to defendant would be muted.
During presentation of the State's case-in-chief on
August 10, 2016, defendant made an oral motion for mistrial
after the portion of the recorded jail call pertaining to the
State's offer was inadvertently played to the jury.
next day, defendant withdrew his motion for mistrial and
tendered a plea of guilty as charged. After being advised of
his Boykin rights and the reading of a victim impact
statement, defendant was sentenced to ten years in the
Department of Corrections on each count. The trial court ordered
that the first two years were to be served without the
benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence.
Defendant was informed of his obligation to register as a sex
offender for life.
August 23, 2016, a letter written by defendant and dated
August 12, 2016, was filed into the record, wherein defendant
argued that he was under duress at the time he entered his
guilty pleas, his decision was not rationally made, and he
requested to be brought before the trial judge. That same
date, the trial court denied the relief requested in
defendant's letter, after finding defendant was informed
of the constitutional rights he was waiving and of the
possible sentences he faced. On September 2, 2016, a
subsequent letter by defendant dated August 29, 2016, was
filed into the record, where he again argued that he was
under duress and he received ineffective assistance of
counsel. Defendant also sought an appeal of his convictions.
On September 6, 2016, the trial court granted defendant an
April 19, 2017, defendant filed a pro se motion to
supplement the instant appellate record, which bears district
court number 16-2702, with certain "materials"
filed under district court number 15-5939 that defendant
averred were missing from the instant record. That same date,
this Court issued an Order for the 24th Judicial
District Clerk of Court to supplement this appellate record
with the record of district court number 15-5939 as an
exhibit to the instant appeal. The supplemental exhibits were
filed on April 20, 2017. Defendant's appeal follows.
defendant's convictions were the result of guilty pleas,
the facts underlying the crimes of which he was convicted are
not fully developed in the record. Nevertheless, the bill of
information provides that on or about October 5, 2015, and on
October 6, 2015, defendant violated La. R.S. 14:81 in that
he, being over the age of seventeen, and there being an age
difference of greater than two years between the two persons,
did commit a lewd and lascivious act upon, or in the presence
of, a known juvenile (D.O.B. 3/27/2008), wherein the victim
was under the age of thirteen, with the intention of arousing
or gratifying the sexual desires of either
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 he 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, 96-2669 (La. 12/12/97),
704 So.2d 241 (per curiam), appointed counsel
requests permission to withdraw as counsel of record.
Anders, supra, the United States Supreme
Court stated that appointed appellate counsel may request
permission to withdraw if he finds his case to be wholly
frivolous after a conscientious examination of
The request must be accompanied by "'a brief
referring to anything in the record that might arguably
support the appeal'" so as to provide the reviewing
court "with a basis for determining whether appointed
counsel have fully performed their duty to support their
clients' appeals to the best of their ability" and
to assist the reviewing court "in making the critical
determination whether the appeal is indeed so frivolous that
counsel should be permitted to withdraw." McCoy v.
Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, Dist. 1, 486 U.S. 429,
439, 108 S.Ct. 1895, 1902, 100 L.Ed.2d 440 (1988).
Jyles, 96-2669 at 2, 704 So.2d at 241, the Louisiana
Supreme Court stated that an Anders brief need not
tediously catalog every meritless pretrial motion or
objection made at trial with a detailed explanation of why
the motions or objections lack merit. The supreme court
explained that an Anders brief must demonstrate by
full discussion and analysis that appellate counsel "has
cast an advocate's eye over the trial record and
considered whether any ruling made by the trial court,
subject to the ...