State v. JacksonState v. Jackson
In this criminal matter defendаnt, Kerry Jackson, was charged by bill of information filed on October 3, 1995, with aggravated bаttery in violation of
The conviction on the aggravated battery charge resulted from testimony at trial by defendant‘s former girlfriend, Veronica Bartholomew, who testified that Jackson hit her repeatedly with a cast on his arm and pushed hеr head into a concrete wall. The altercation occurred in the рarking lot of the Piggly Wiggly Store in Gretna, Louisiana and was witnessed by Ms. Bartholomew‘s daughter, Kim Hаlstead, as well as another shopper.
In brief to this court, defense counsel seeks a review of the record for errors patent in accordance with the procedures outlined in Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), reh. denied, 388 U.S. 924, 87 S.Ct. 2094, 18 L.Ed.2d 1377 (1967) as interpreted by the Fourth Circuit in State v. Benjamin, 573 So.2d 528 (La.App. 4th Cir.1990), and adopted by this court in State v. Bradford, 95-929, 95-930, (La.App. 5 Cir. 6/25/96), 676 So.2d 1108, and moves to withdraw. In the motion to withdraw, defense counsel asserts that a thorough examination of the record for non-frivolоus issues which might arguably support an appeal was conducted and none were found. Defense counsel notified defendant of his right to file a pro se brief in this matter. No such brief was filed by defendant.
In accordance with the procedure set forth in State v. Benjamin, supra, we have cоnducted a review of the record for errors patent and note several errors, none of which require reversal.
Initially we note that the defendant was not advised specifically of his right to remain silent at the multiple bill hearing.
At the hearing, appellant‘s counsel stated the following: “... We‘re going to stipulate to the—to the double-bill without a hearing.” Thereafter, the following colloquy took plаce between the trial judge and the appellant:
THE COURT:
Alright, Mr. Jackson, do you understand that you have the right to go forward on a multiple bill hearing?
MR. KERRY JACKSON:
Yes, sir.
THE COURT:
And that you‘re, by consenting tо it, you‘re waiving that right?
MR. KERRY JACKSON:
Yes, sir.
THE COURT:
Do you understand that you have the right for an attorney to represent you at that hearing?
MR. KERRY JACKSON:
Yes, sir.
THE COURT:
And that by consenting to it, you‘re waiving that right?
MR. KERRY JACKSON:
Yes, sir.
The record reflects that defense counsel informеd the court that his client wished to plead guilty to the charge and would stipulate to the prior convictions. Although the court did not specifically advise the defеndant of his right to remain silent, the trial judge addressed the defendant who stated he agreed with the plea and that he understood his right to a hearing and that he wished to waive the hearing and enter his plea. Under the circumstances of this case we find the defendant intelligently waived his rights and entered the plea of guilty. See, State v. Wheelwright, 615 So.2d 385 (La.App. 5 Cir.1993), writ denied, 619 So.2d 576 (La. 1993); State v. Carruth, 94-147, 148 (La.App. 5 Cir. 9/27/94), 643 So.2d 1319.
We also note that the sentence prohibits parole. Neither
Finally, we note that the trial court failed to advise the defendant of the prescriptive period for post-cоnviction relief as mandated in
CONVICTION AFFIRMED; SENTENCE AMENDED AND AS AMENDED