State v. Carroll, 213 So. 3d 486

On Feb. 2, 2015, Matthew Carroll pled guilty (pursuant to a plea agreement) to battery of a police officer (La. R.S. 14:34.2) and battery of a correctional facility employee (La. R.S. 14:34.5).
Plea terms: six months at hard labor (count one) with credit for time served and no probation/suspension; one year at hard labor (count two) without parole/probation/suspension; sentences to run consecutively. The plea also included the State’s agreement not to file a multiple offender bill.
A probable cause affidavit indicates Carroll struck, bit, and kicked two Jefferson Parish deputies while being transferred, but the factual record is limited because of guilty pleas.
Carroll later sought post-conviction relief; the trial court converted that application into an out-of-time appeal. Appellate counsel filed an Anders brief and moved to withdraw, notifying Carroll and giving him an opportunity to file a pro se brief (he did not).
The State and appellate counsel argued the pleas were knowing and voluntary after an adequate Boykin colloquy and that sentences were within statutory ranges and in conformity with the plea agreement.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Carroll)	Held
Validity of guilty pleas (Boykin colloquy / knowing and voluntary)	Pleas were knowing, voluntary; court properly advised Carroll of rights and consequences	(No non-frivolous challenge identified by appellate counsel)	Court found colloquy adequate; pleas valid and voluntary
Right to appeal sentence imposed under plea agreement	Sentences were in statutory range and conformed to plea; defendant was informed of appeal rights	(No non-frivolous challenge identified)	Sentences upheld; Art. 881.2 bars appeal of sentences conforming to plea but court reviewed and affirmed
Appellate counsel’s motion to withdraw under Anders/Bradford/Jyles	Counsel conscientiously reviewed record, found no non-frivolous issues, complied with notice requirements	Carroll did not file a pro se supplemental brief raising issues	Court performed independent review, agreed with counsel, and granted withdrawal
Error-patent review	Routine review shows no patent errors requiring correction	(No specific patent-error claim)	Court found no errors patent and none requiring correction

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (appointed counsel may move to withdraw if appeal is wholly frivolous after conscientious review)
McCoy v. Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, 486 U.S. 429 (1988) (describing Anders withdrawal procedures and court’s review role)
State v. Bradford, 676 So.2d 1108 (La. App. 5 Cir.) (procedures for Anders-type review adopted by court)
State v. Jyles, 704 So.2d 241 (La.) (Anders brief must show counsel reviewed record with advocate’s eye and address potential adverse rulings)
Boykin v. Alabama, 393 U.S. 820 (1968) (requirements for a knowing and voluntary guilty plea colloquy)
State v. Oliveaux, 312 So.2d 337 (La.) (mandating error-patent review)
State v. Weiland, 556 So.2d 175 (La. App. 5 Cir.) (error-patent procedures referenced)
State v. Chess, 762 So.2d 1286 (La. App. 5 Cir.) (jurisdictional limits on appeals of misdemeanors and related procedure)
Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 259 (2000) (reiterating Anders principles)
State v. Mouton, 653 So.2d 1176 (La.) (endorsing Anders-type procedures cited in Bradford)