State v. Goff
140 So. 3d 146
La. Ct. App.2014Background
- Darion Goff was charged with armed robbery (La. R.S. 14:64) and aggravated battery (La. R.S. 14:34) arising from a July 10, 2007 knife robbery and stabbing of Tuan Nhuyen.
- Goff pled guilty to both counts on December 15, 2008; parties agreed to a Pre-Sentence Investigation (PSI) and a 30-year sentencing cap.
- On March 16, 2009 the trial court sentenced Goff to 30 years at hard labor (armed robbery, without benefits) and 5 years (aggravated battery) to run concurrently.
- Appellate counsel filed an Anders brief asserting no non-frivolous issues and moved to withdraw; the State concurred.
- The appellate court conducted an independent review, found no meritorious appellate issues, granted counsel’s motion to withdraw, affirmed convictions and sentences, and remanded to correct sentencing minute entries.
- On error‑patent review the court amended the judgment to delete a trial-court directive ordering treatment (which the court lacked authority to impose) and found any minute‑entry discrepancy about hard labor to be moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of bills of information | Bills properly charge armed robbery and aggravated battery | Bills are sufficient as required by La.C.Cr.P. arts. 464–66 | Bills were proper and adequate |
| Voluntariness and Boykin colloquy for guilty plea | Plea was knowingly and voluntarily entered; waiver form signed and colloquy adequate | (Goff) may argue plea infirmities (not preserved) | Plea was valid; Boykin rights advised; any minor Article 556.1 error was harmless |
| Availability of appellate review of sentence imposed under plea agreement | Plea agreement (30‑year cap) bars appeal of sentence imposed in conformity with the plea | (Goff) cannot challenge sentence imposed pursuant to plea agreement | Sentence not reviewable on appeal because imposed per plea agreement |
| Counsel’s Anders motion to withdraw | Appellate counsel reviewed record and found no non‑frivolous issues; requests withdrawal | (Goff) contends otherwise? (no meritorious points identified) | Court performed independent review, found no non‑frivolous issues, and granted withdrawal |
| Error‑patent: court-ordered treatment language | State asserts trial court cannot dictate treatment as part of sentence | Trial court had no authority to order treatment as imposed | Amended judgment to delete treatment directive; remanded to correct minute entries |
| Discrepancy about hard‑labor notation for 5‑year sentence | State: transcript shows concurrent service with 30‑yr hard‑labor term; minute entry lists hard labor | (Goff) not prejudiced; discrepancy should be clarified | Court held the 5‑year term runs concurrently with the 30‑year hard‑labor term; discrepancy moot but minutes remanded for correction |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (standards for counsel to seek withdrawal on appeal when case is frivolous)
- Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (U.S. 1969) (requirements for advising defendant of constitutional rights before accepting guilty plea)
- State v. Jyles, 704 So.2d 241 (La. 1997) (Anders‑style briefing requirements in Louisiana)
- State v. Defrene, 980 So.2d 31 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2008) (items appellate court reviews when counsel files an Anders brief)
- State v. Oliveaux, 312 So.2d 337 (La. 1975) (error‑patent review authority)
- State v. Weiland, 556 So.2d 175 (La. App. 5 Cir. 1990) (procedures for error‑patent review)