APPEAL FROM THE TWENTY-FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH
OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF LOUISIANA NO. 99-6773, DIVISION
"M" HONORABLE HENRY G. SULLIVAN, JR., JUDGE
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE, STATE OF LOUISIANA Paul D.
Connick, Jr., Terry M. Boudreaux.
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT, THADDEUS JOHNSON Jane L.
composed of Judges Marc E. Johnson, John J. Molaison, Jr.,
and Robert M. Murphy, Ad Hoc
J. MOLAISON, JR. JUDGE.
Thaddeus Johnson, appeals following his re-sentencing as a
third-felony offender. For the reasons that follow, we affirm
defendant's sentence, grant appellate counsel's
motion to withdraw, and remand for correction of the Uniform
AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
defendant's second appeal. In State v. Johnson,
01-0842 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2/13/02), 812 So.2d 106, writ
denied, 02-1037 (La. 3/21/03), 840 So.2d 532, this Court
affirmed defendant's convictions for two counts of armed
robbery and enhanced life sentence as a multiple offender.
Thereafter, defendant's application for post-conviction
relief was denied. State v. Johnson, 04-496 (La.
App. 5 Cir. 5/5/04) (unpublished writ disposition), State
ex rel Johnson v. State, 04-1491 (La. 4/8/05), 899 So.2d
3. On July 27, 2018, defendant filed a pro se Motion
and Order to Correct Illegal Sentence and Request for
Resentencing Hearing in which he argued that his life
sentence without benefits as a third-felony offender was
illegal in light of State ex rel. Esteen v. State,
16-0949 (La. 1/30/18), 239 So.3d 233, rehearing
denied, 16-0949 (La. 3/13/18), 239 So.3d 266, and the
more lenient provisions enacted by Act No. 403 of the 2001
Regular Legislative Session and Act No. 45 of the 2006 First
Extraordinary Legislative Session. On August 9, 2018, the
State filed a response to defendant's motion, conceding
that he was entitled to resentencing under the ameliorative
changes in Act No. 403 under the holding of Esteen
and that defendant's now illegal sentence, imposed
pursuant to the then-existing version of La. R.S.
15:529.1(A)(1)(b)(ii)-which at the time mandated a sentence
of life imprisonment for a third-felony offender-should be
corrected. The State affirmed that defendant was therefore
entitled to resentencing to a term not less than 66 years of
imprisonment and not more than 198 years of imprisonment.
October 11, 2018, the trial court vacated defendant's
life sentence and resentenced him to serve 66 years at hard
labor without the benefit of parole, probation, or suspension
of sentence. On November 13, 2018, defendant filed a pro
se written motion for appeal that was granted on
November 28, 2018. The instant appeal followed.
the procedure adopted by this Court, 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 has filed a motion 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 the defendant's 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, 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 ...