APPEAL FROM THE TWENTY-FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH
OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF LOUISIANA NO. 92-1252, DIVISION
"B" HONORABLE CORNELIUS E. REGAN, JUDGE PRESIDING
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE, STATE OF LOUISIANA Paul D.
Connick, Jr. Terry M. Boudreaux
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT, VERNON E. FRANCIS, JR. Jane
DEFENDANT/APPELLANT, VERNON E. FRANCIS, JR. In Proper Person
composed of Judges Robert A. Chaisson, Stephen J. Windhorst,
and Marion F. Edwards, Judge Pro Tempore
F. EDWARDS, JUDGE PRO TEMPORE JUDGE
appeal, defendant's appointed appellate counsel has filed
an Andersbrief on defendant's behalf, asserting
there is no basis for a non-frivolous appeal. Further,
defendant has filed a pro se supplemental brief
assigning three errors. For the following reasons, we affirm
defendant's sentence, advise him of the time limitation
for seeking post-conviction relief, and grant appellate
counsel's motion to withdraw as attorney of record.
AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
1993, defendant, Vernon Francis, who was tried as an adult at
the age of 16 years, was convicted of the second degree
murder of Shannon Cooks in violation of LSA-R.S. 14:30.1. He
was sentenced to life imprisonment at hard labor without
benefit of parole, probation or suspension of sentence.
Defendant's conviction and sentence were affirmed on
appeal. State v. Francis, 93-953 (La.App. 5 Cir.
03/16/94), 635 So.2d 305. In 2013, defendant sought a hearing
for parole eligibility,  pursuant to Miller v. Alabama,
567 U.S. 460, 132 S.Ct. 2455, 2466, 183 L.Ed.2d 407 (2012),
which was held on May 12, 2017. At the conclusion of the
hearing, the trial court vacated defendant's life
sentence and resentenced him to life imprisonment with parole
eligibility upon serving 25 years of his sentence. Defendant
was thereafter granted an out-of-time appeal on September 20,
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, supra, and State v. Jyles,
96-2669 (La. 12/12/97), 704 So.2d 241 (per curiam),
appointed counsel requests permission to withdraw as counsel
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) (internal
State v. 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 contemporaneous objection rule, had a
significant, adverse impact on shaping the evidence presented
to the jury for its consideration." Id.
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.
Bradford, 95-929 at 4, 676 So.2d at 1110. 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. However, if the
court finds any legal point arguable on the merits, it may
either deny the motion and order the ...