APPEAL FROM THE TWENTY-FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH
OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF LOUISIANA NO. 13-6158, DIVISION
"H" HONORABLE GLENN B. ANSARDI, JUDGE PRESIDING
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE, STATE OF LOUISIANA Paul D.
Connick, Jr. Terry M. Boudreaux
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT, SAMUEL COOKS Holli A.
DEFENDANT/APPELLANT, SAMUEL COOKS In Proper Person
composed of Judges Susan M. Chehardy, Robert A. Chaisson, and
John J. Molaison, Jr.
J. MOLAISON, JR. JUDGE.
appeals his convictions and sentences for manslaughter and
for being a convicted felon in possession of a firearm. For
the reasons that follow, defendant's convictions and
sentences are affirmed; the matter is further remanded for
correction of the Uniform Commitment Order, and we grant
appellate counsel's motion to withdraw as counsel.
Jefferson Parish Grand Jury returned a true bill of
indictment on December 12, 2013, charging defendant, Samuel
Cooks, with second degree murder, in violation of La. R.S.
14:30.1 (Count 1), and with possession of a firearm by a
convicted felon, in violation of La. R.S. 14:95.1 (Count 2).
Defendant pled not guilty to both counts at his arraignment
on December 13, 2013. On December 5, 2017, the State amended
the indictment and reduced the charge of second degree murder
to manslaughter, a violation of La. R.S. 14:31, and, at that
time, defendant withdrew his former pleas of not guilty and
pled guilty to both counts. Pursuant to his plea agreement
with the State, the trial court sentenced defendant to 40
years in the Department of Corrections on Count 1, and to 10
years in the Department of Corrections on Count 2. The
sentences were ordered to run concurrently with one another
and any other sentence defendant was serving.
filed a Uniform Application for Post-Conviction Relief on May
4, 2018, which the trial converted into a motion for an
out-of-time appeal on May 9, 2018. The instant appeal
defendant's convictions resulted from guilty pleas, the
underlying facts were not fully developed in the record.
However, the amended true bill of indictment alleges that,
for Count 1, on August 26, 2013, defendant violated La. R.S.
14:31, in that he committed the manslaughter of Ryan Easly.
The bill of indictment also alleged, for Count 2, that on
August 26, 2013, defendant violated La. R.S. 14:95.1 in that
he was in possession of a firearm, after having been
previously convicted of violating La. RS. 40:967(C), under
Case Number 515-379, Division F, in the Criminal District
Court, Parish of Orleans.
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 found no 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 counsel of record for defendant.
Anders, supra, the United States Supreme Court stated
that appointed appellate counsel may request permission to
withdraw if he finds defendant's appeal 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).
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 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