hThе defendant, Laderrius Shelton, entered a guilty plea to attempted first degree robbery with a sentencing cap of 15 years. Thereafter, he was sentenced to 14 years at hard labor. The defendant filed the instant appeal.
The defendant’s appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw, together with a brief pursuant to Anders v. California,
On January 17, 2014, the defendant and an acсomplice robbed the Harris Corner Store in Minden. Both were masked, and the accomplice carried a firearm. They fled and, shortly thereafter, were apprehended by officers of the Minden Police Department.
The defendant was charged with armed robbery with the use of a fireаrm, conspiracy to commit armed robbery, and illegal possession of a stolen firearm. He was represented by retained counsel. Trial commenced on June 15, 2015. The jury deadlocked, and a mistrial was declared on June 18, 2015. On that same day, the defendant accepted a plea offer, wherein he pled guilty to attempted first degree robbery with a cap of 15 years on any sentence imposed by the trial court, with the benеfit of a presentence investigation (PSI) report.
|2Puring the guilty plea colloquy, the trial court elicited that the 21-year-old defendant had attendеd two semesters of college. The trial court informed the defendant of his rights, including the right to appeal, and advised him that, by accepting the guilty plea, he would be waiving those rights. The defendant stated that he understood. The prosecutor recounted the factual basis for the plea:
[0]n Januаry 17th, 2014, Mr. Laderri-us Shelton planned with Mr. Brian Gilbert to rob whoever was employed at Harris Corner Store at the time. Near 8:00 o’clock that night, both Mr. Shelton and Mr. Gilbert donned masks, entered the store, while Mr. Gilbert was armed with a firearm, and took money from ... the victim .... The State alleges, for purposes of this pleа, what Mr. Shelton did constitutes an attempted first degree robbery in violation of Louisiana law and that all the facts occurred in Webster Parish.
The defendant agreed that the recitation of the facts was correct. At the conclusion of the plea, the charges of conspiracy tо commit armed robbery and illegal possession of a stolen firearm were nol prossed by the state.
On August 3, 2015, the defendant appeared for sentencing. The trial court noted that, in addition to the PSI report, it had received approximately 20 letters, many attesting to the defendant’s good character. The court read two letters into the record. One was from the defendant and requested leniency. The other was from the owner of the convenience store, who recounted how his niece, who was working at the store that night, was robbed of $147.28 by the defendant and his accomplice, who was armed with аn AK.-47 assault rifle. The store owner requested the maximum sentence for the defendant due to the traumatic nature of the events. After considering all of the sentencing factors, the trial court imposed a sentence of 14 years at hard labor, one year less than the sentencing cap оf 15 years. It recommended the defendant for substance abuse treatment. The defendant |3was also given credit for time served. After imposing sentence, the court advised the defendant that he had 30 days to appeal the sentence.
On March 11, 2016, the defendant’s appellate counsel filed a motion to withdrаw and an Anders brief. He asserted that he had made a thorough review of the record and found no nonfrivolous issues to raise on appeal. Seе Anders, supra; State v. Jyles, 96-2669 (La. 12/12/97),
This court held the motion to withdraw in abeyance and advised the defendant of his right to file an appellate brief within 30 days of the court’s order. The defendant did not request the appellate record or file a pro se brief. The state filed a letter in which it agreed that there were no Lnonfrivolous issues subject to argument on appeal and requested that defense appellate counsel be allowed to withdraw.
The record reflects that a sentencing cap of 15 years was offered by the state and accepted by the defendant, rеsulting in an agreed-upon sentence. After reviewing the PSI report and various letters, the trial court imposed a sentence within the agreed-upоn cap. Thus, the defendant is precluded from seeking review of his sentence because it was imposed under a sentencing cap in conformity with a plea agreement set forth in the record at the time of the plea. La. C. Cr. P. art. 881.2(A)(2); State v. Young, 96-0195 (La. 10/15/96),
We have reviewed the record for error patеnt. The only error patent found is the trial court’s failure to specify that the defendant’s sentence be served without parole, probation, or suspension of sentence, as required by La. R.S. 14:27 and La. R.S. 14:64.1. However, in the instant case, such error is self-correcting under La. R.S. 15:301.1, eliminating the need to remand for a ministerial correction of the illegally lenient sentence resulting from the failure of the sentencing court to impose the restrictions. See State v. Williams, 2000-1725 (La. 11/28/01),
MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED; CONVICTION AND SENTENCE AFFIRMED, WITH INSTRUCTIONS FOR CORRECTION OF MINUTES.
Notes
. Under La. R.S. 14:64.1 and La. R.S. 14:27, the maximum sentence fоr attempted first degree robbery is 20 years at hard labor without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence. State v. Jackson, 48,534 (La.App. 2 Cir. 1/15/14),
. Since the defendant specifically waived his right of appeal during his guilty plea, the trial court’s mention of the appeal time period does not make the sentence reviewable. See State v. Banks, 48,867 (La.App. 2 Cir. 2/26/14),
. Even assuming arguendo that the sentence was reviewable, we find that 14 years at hard labor was not excessive under the facts of the instant case, wherein a store clerk was placed in grave and immediate danger by robbers armed with an assault rifle. The trial court fully cоmplied with the provisions of La. C. Cr. P. art. 894.1. Furthermore, the sentence does not violate La. Const. Art. 1, § 20. The defendant obtained great benefit from the plea bargain, which substantially reduced his sentencing exposure.