| , Defendant, Antoine Gillin, appeals his convictions for possession of heroin and possession of cocaine, his multiple offender adjudication, and accompanying sentences. For the reasons that follow, we affirm his convictiоns and multiple offender adjudication, affirm his five-year sentence for possession of cocaine, and amend his enhanced sentence to delete the $500 fine.
On December 23, 2014, Defendant was charged in a bill of information with possessiоn with intent to distribute heroin in violation of La. R.S. 40:966(A) (count one) and possession with intent to distribute cocaine in violation of La. R.S. 40:967(A) (count two). Initially, he pled not guilty to both charges. On May 27, 2015, the State amended the bill of information to charge Defendant with possession of heroin, a violation of La. R.S. 40:966(C), and possession of cocaine, a violation of La. R.S. 40:967(C). On that same datе, Defendant withdrew his not guilty pleas and pled guilty to both counts as charged in the amended bill of information. The trial court sentеnced Defendant on each count to five years at hard labor and a $500 fine, to run concurrently with each other.
Also on May 27, 2015, the State filed a multiple offender bill of information on count one alleging Defendant to be a second fеlony offender, to which Defendant stipulated. The trial court vacated Defendant’s sentence on count one and resen-tenced him as a multiple offender to five years at hard labor without benefit of probation or suspension of sentence and a $500 fine, to run concurrently with his original sentence on count two.
Defendant was granted this out-of-time appeal after filing an application for post-conviction relief alleging his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to advise him to take the better of two plea offers.
| ^Appellate counsel’s brief contains no assignments of error and sets forth that it is filed in accordance with Anders v. California,
In the instant case, appellate counsel reviewed the procedural history of the case in her brief. She set forth thаt, after a review of the record, she has failed to find any non-frivolous issues to present on appeal. Appellate counsel stated that there were no pre-trial hearings or adverse rulings prior to Defendant’s guilty pleas. She nоted that Defendant entered unqualified guilty pleas, which waived all non-jurisdictional defects and precludes review of аny such defects on appeal. Counsel also noted that Defendant was sentenced in accordance with а plea agreement and, thus, was prohibited from appealing his sentences. Counsel further noted that the record was insufficient to address Defendant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim that he raised in his premature apрlication for post-conviction relief because none of the
This Court has performed an independent, thorough reviеw of the pleadings, minute entries, bills of information, and transcripts in the appellate record. Our independent review rеveals no non-frivolous issues or trial court rulings that arguably support an appeal. Thus, we affirm Defendant’s convictions аnd multiple offender adjudication and grant appellate counsel’s motion to withdraw, which has been held in abeyanсe pending disposition of this matter.
In our error patent review, we note, as pointed out by the State in its appellеe brief, that the trial judge imper-missibly imposed a' $500 fine when sentencing Defendant under |sthe multiple offender law. See State v. Dickerson,
We further note an error in the Uniform Commitment Order (UCO). The UCO reflects that Defendant was convicted on count two of a violation of La. R.S. 40:966(C), when the transcript and waiver of rights form clearly show that Defendant pled guilty on count two to a violation of La. R.S. 40:967(C). Therefore, we remand this matter for correction of the UCO and instruct the Clerk of Court for the 24th Judicial District, Court to transmit the original оf the corrected UCO to the, officer in charge of the institution to which Defendant has been sentenced and the Deрartment of Corrections’ legal department.
CONVICTIONS AFFIRMED; MULTIPLE OFFENDER ADJUDICATION AFFIRMED; ENHANCED SENTENCE ON COUNT ONE AMENDED AND AFFIRMED AS AMENDED; SENTENCE ON COUNT TWO AFFIRMED; COMMITMENT REMANDED FOR CORRECTION; MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED
Notes
. This memorandum opinion is issued in compliance with Uniform Rules—Courts of Appeal Rule 2-16.1(B).
. Defendant sought supervisory review of the trial court’s ruling that treated his application for post-conviction relief as a request for out-of-time appeal on the basis his only claim was ineffective assistance of counsel, which was better addressed in post-conviction, and that he had no issues to raise on appeal. Recognizing Defendant’s procedural predicament, we nonetheless found that Defendant’s application for post-cоnviction relief was premature under La. C.Cr.P. art. 924.1 because his appellate rights had not been exhausted, as he could still appeal his convictions and sentences through an out-of-time appeal. State v. Gillin, 16-KH-276 (La. App. 5 Cir. 5/13/16) (unpublished writ disposition).