APPEAL FROM THE TWENTY-FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH
OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF LOUISIANA NO. 16-3460, DIVISION
"F" HONORABLE MICHAEL P. MENTZ, JUDGE PRESIDING
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE, STATE OF LOUISIANA Paul D.
Connick, Jr. Terry M. Boudreaux
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT, CARLOS DUPREE ROMIOUS Bertha
composed of Judges Marc E. Johnson, Robert A. Chaisson, and
Marion F. Edwards, Judge Pro Tempore
A. CHAISSON JUDGE.
Carlos Dupree Romious, appeals his convictions and sentences
for two counts of battery of a police officer. For the
reasons that follow, we affirm defendant's convictions
and sentences, and we further grant appellate counsel's
motion to withdraw as attorney of record for defendant.
3, 2016, the Jefferson Parish District Attorney filed a bill
of information charging defendant with two counts of battery
of a police officer, in violation of La. R.S. 14:34.2.
Defendant pled not guilty at his arraignment. He thereafter
filed a motion to appoint a sanity commission to determine
his competency to proceed to trial. On September 14, 2016,
after considering the report of the sanity commission, the
trial court found defendant not competent to proceed to trial
and committed him to the forensic unit at the Eastern
Louisiana Mental Health System. On July 19, 2017, the trial
court, after reviewing a subsequent report by the sanity
commission, determined that defendant was competent to
proceed to trial.
this determination, defendant withdrew his previous pleas of
not guilty and, after being advised of his rights, pled
guilty to both counts. In accordance with the plea agreement,
the trial court sentenced defendant, on count one, to one
year imprisonment at hard labor without benefit of probation,
parole, or suspension of sentence. On count two, the trial
court sentenced defendant to one year imprisonment at hard
labor, suspended all but thirty days of the sentence, and
ordered the thirty days to be served without benefit of
probation, parole, or suspension of sentence. In addition,
the trial court ordered that defendant be placed on one year
active probation upon his release from prison and that his
sentence on count one run consecutively with his sentence on
the procedure adopted by this Court in State v.
Bradford, 95-929 (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, 96-2669 (La. 12/12/97),
704 So.2d 241 (per curiam), appointed appellate
counsel requests permission to withdraw as attorney of record
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.
If, after an independent review, the reviewing court
determines there are no non-frivolous issues for appeal, it
may grant counsel's motion to withdraw and affirm the
defendant's conviction and sentence. State v.
Bradford, 676 So.2d at 1110.
case, defendant's appellate counsel has complied with the
procedures for filing an Anders brief. She sets
forth the procedural history of the case and notes the
limited facts in light of defendant's guilty pleas.
Appellate counsel asserts that before defendant's
decision to change his pleas from not guilty to guilty, he
was fully informed of the legal consequences of changing his
pleas by both his trial counsel and the trial court. She
avers that an examination of the plea colloquy reveals that
the trial court explained to defendant each of the rights
necessary to ensure a knowing and intelligent waiver of
rights under Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 89
S.Ct. 1709, 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969). Furthermore, appellate
counsel notes that defendant was informed of the sentences he
would receive and was sentenced in accordance with the plea
agreement, which restricts him from appealing his sentences.
In addition to her brief, appellate counsel has filed a
motion to withdraw as attorney of record for defendant on the
basis that she has conducted a conscientious and thorough
review of the trial court record and can find no
non-frivolous issues to raise on appeal and no rulings of the
trial court that arguably support the appeal.
Court has performed an independent, thorough review of the
pleadings, minute entries, bill of information, and
transcripts in the appellate record. Our review supports
appellate counsel's assertion ...