APPEAL FROM THE TWENTY-FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH
OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF LOUISIANA NO. 17-896, DIVISION
"E" HONORABLE JOHN J. MOLAISON, JR., JUDGE
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE, STATE OF LOUISIANA Paul D.
Connick, Jr. Terry M. Boudreaux
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT, LAWRENCE WILLIAMS Prentice
composed of Judges Robert A. Chaisson, Stephen J. Windhorst,
and Hans J. Liljeberg
J. LILJEBERG, JUDGE
Lawrence Williams, appeals his convictions and sentences for
two counts of armed robbery with a firearm. For the following
reasons, we affirm defendant's convictions, vacate his
sentences and remand with instructions. We also grant
appellate counsel's motion to withdraw as attorney of
record for defendant.
AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
February 9, 2017, the Jefferson Parish District Attorney
filed a bill of information charging defendant with two
counts of armed robbery with a firearm in violation of La.
R.S. 14:64 and La. R.S. 14:64.3(A). On the following date,
defendant was arraigned and entered pleas of not guilty. On
July 18, 2017, defendant filed an untitled pleading seeking
the appointment of a sanity commission to determine his
competency to proceed to trial, which the trial court granted
that same day.
26, 2017, the trial court found defendant competent to
proceed based upon the opinion of the sanity commission. Also
on that date, defendant withdrew his pleas of not guilty and
entered pleas of guilty as charged. Upon the trial
court's request, the State presented a factual basis for
the pleas. The State asserted that if it were to proceed to
trial, it would prove beyond a reasonable doubt that on or
about January 10, 2017, within Jefferson Parish, defendant
violated La. R.S. 14:64.3 by robbing James Rigney and
Reynolds Rigney while armed with a dangerous weapon, a
firearm. After accepting his pleas, the trial court sentenced
defendant in accordance with the plea agreement to twenty
years at hard labor without the benefit of parole, probation,
or suspension of sentence on each count with the sentences to
run concurrently. The State agreed not to file a habitual
offender bill against defendant.
March 1, 2018, defendant filed an application for
post-conviction relief seeking an out-of-time appeal in
accordance with State v. Counterman, 475 So.2d 336
(La. 1985). On March 9, 2018, the trial court dismissed
defendant's application for post-conviction relief
without prejudice and granted his motion for an out-of-time
the procedure adopted by this Court in State v.
Bradford, 95-929 and 95-930 (La.App. 5 Cir. 6/25/96),
676 So.2d 1108, 1110-11,  appointed appellate counsel has filed a
brief asserting that he 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 it. 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 omitted).
Jyles, 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 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