APPEAL FROM THE TWENTY-FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH
OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF LOUISIANA NO. 15-1806, DIVISION
"O" HONORABLE DANYELLE M. TAYLOR, JUDGE PRESIDING
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE, STATE OF LOUISIANA Paul D.
Connick, Jr. Terry M. Boudreaux Juliet L. Clark
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT, TERRANCE P. HUDSON A.K.A.
"PEPPER" Jane L. Beebe
DEFENDANT/APPELLANT, TERRANCE P. HUDSON A.K.A.
"PEPPER" In Proper Person
composed of Judges Susan M. Chehardy, Marc E. Johnson, and
Hans J. Liljeberg
E. JOHNSON JUDGE.
Terrance P. Hudson a/k/a "Pepper, " appeals his
sentences for manslaughter, attempted second degree murder,
and intimidation of a witness from the 24th
Judicial District Court, Division "O". For the
following reasons, we affirm Defendant's convictions and
sentences on counts one and two, vacate Defendant's
sentence on count three, and remand the matter for
resentencing consistent with this opinion. Additionally, we
remand the matter for correction of the uniform commitment
AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
March 26, 2015, a Jefferson Parish Grand Jury indicted
Defendant with second degree murder, in violation of La. R.S.
14:30.1. Defendant was arraigned on March 27, 2015, and
pleaded not guilty. On January 12, 2017, a Jefferson Parish
Grand Jury returned a superseding indictment charging
Defendant with second degree murder, in violation of La. R.S.
14:30.1 (count one), attempted second degree murder, in
violation of La. R.S. 14:30.1 and La. R.S. 14:27 (count two),
and intimidation of a witness, in violation of La. R.S.
14:129.1 (count three). Defendant was re-arraigned on January
13, 2017, and pleaded not guilty. On September 11, 2017, the
State amended the indictment as to the dates of occurrence in
count three. On September 12, 2017, the State amended count
one of the indictment to manslaughter, in violation of La.
on that same date, Defendant withdrew his not guilty pleas
and pleaded guilty as charged. Because Defendant pleaded
guilty, the underlying facts were not fully developed at a
trial. Nevertheless, the State alleged in the amended
superseding indictment that on or about December 7, 2014,
Defendant, in Jefferson Parish, violated La. R.S. 14:31, in
that he committed the manslaughter of Maurcell Mitchell
(count one). The State also alleged in that same indictment
that on or about December 7, 2014, Defendant, in Jefferson
Parish, violated La. R.S. 14:30.1 and La. R.S. 14:27, in that
he attempted to commit the second degree murder of Kentrell
Riley (count two). The State further alleged that on or
between December 7, 2014 and September 11, 2017, Defendant,
in Jefferson Parish, violated La. R.S. 14:129.1, in that he
"intimidate[d], impede[d], by force or threats of force
to Israel Jones" with the intent to influence his
testimony in a judicial proceeding, reporting of criminal
conduct, or appearance at a judicial proceeding (count
the colloquy, the State provided the following factual basis:
Your Honor, if this matter would go to trial, the State would
be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt as to count 1,
that on or about December the 7th of 2014, the
defendant violated Revised Statute 14:31, in that he did
commit manslaughter, being responsible for the murder of
As to count 2, that on that same date of December the
7th, 2014, the defendant violated Revised Statute
14:2730.1 [sic] in that he did attempt to commit second
degree murder of Kentrell Riley.
And as to count 3, on or between December the 7th,
2014, and September the 11th of 2017, the
defendant violated Revised Statute 14:129.1 in that he did
intimidate, impede by force or threats of force Israel Jones
with the intent of influencing his testimony in judicial
proceedings reporting criminal conduct or appearance at a
hearing the factual basis, Defendant indicated that he
committed those crimes. The trial judge, thereafter,
sentenced Defendant to imprisonment at hard labor for 30
years on each count, with the sentences to run concurrently
with each other and with any other sentence Defendant may
have been serving at the time. On September 13, 2017, the
trial judge vacated those sentences, resentenced Defendant to
imprisonment at hard labor for 30 years on each count to run
concurrently with each other and with any other sentence
Defendant may have been serving at the time, and gave him
credit for time served. The trial judge also ordered the
sentence on count two to be served without benefit of parole,
probation, or suspension of sentence. On October 10, 2017,
Defendant filed a timely pro se motion for appeal,
which was granted. The instant appeal followed.
counseled assignment of error, Defendant requests that this
Court review the record for any errors patent. In pro
se assignments of error, Defendant alleges the trial
court erred in imposing three concurrent 30-year sentences
for his convictions, as those sentences were not in
conformity with his plea agreement; his sentence for the
intimidation of a witness conviction is illegal; and, the
trial court erred in restricting parole for his attempted
second degree murder conviction.
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 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 she finds her 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) (quotation
Jyles, supra 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
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, supra 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 court-appointed ...