State of Louisiana v. Simcoe Cole AKA Simco W. Cole

NOT FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

12-1039 STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS SIMCOE COLE A/K/A SIMCO W. COLE

********** APPEAL FROM THE

FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF LAFAYETTE, DOCKET NO. 125742.1 HONORABLE EDWARD D. RUBIN, DISTRICT JUDGE

**********

SYLVIA R. COOKS JUDGE

**********

Court composed of Sylvia R. Cooks, James T. Genovese, and John E. Conery, Judges.

CONVICTION AND SENTENCE AFFIRMED; MOTION TO

WITHDRAW GRANTED.

Alan P. Haney Assistant District Attorney, Fifteenth Judicial District 300 Rue Beauregard, Building C P.O. Box 4308 Lafayette, LA 70502 (337) 291-7009 ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE

State of Louisiana Edward J. Marquet Louisiana Appellate Project P.O. Box 53733 Lafayette, LA 70505-3733 (337) 237-6841 ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT

Simcoe Cole a/k/a Simco W. Cole COOKS, Judge.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

While armed with a paring knife, Defendant, Simcoe Cole, robbed Darrell Fairburn, who was staying at the Red Roof Inn in Lafayette. Defendant‟s DNA was found on the knife left in Fairburn‟s room, and Fairburn positively identified Defendant as the perpetrator.

Defendant was charged by bill of information with one count of armed robbery, a violation of La.R.S. 14:64, and eighteen counts of forgery, violations of La.R.S. 14:72. Defendant entered a plea of not guilty on February 2, 2010. On October 18, 2011, the State moved to sever count one (armed robbery) for trial.1 Trial subsequently commenced, and Defendant was found guilty of armed robbery. Defendant was sentenced to serve ten years at hard labor, without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence. A motion for appeal was filed and granted.

Defendant‟s appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396 (1967), alleging the record contains no errors that would support a reversal of Defendant‟s conviction and sentence in this matter. Defendant was advised that counsel filed an Anders brief, and he has failed to file a pro se brief in this matter.2 For the following reasons, we affirm Defendant‟s conviction and sentence and grant appellate counsel‟s motion to withdraw.

ANDERS ANALYSIS

Pursuant to Anders, Defendant‟s appellate counsel filed a brief stating he made a conscientious and thorough review of the record and could find no errors on appeal that would support reversal of Defendant‟s conviction or sentence. Thus, counsel seeks to withdraw.

In State v. Benjamin, 573 So.2d 528, 531 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1990), the fourth circuit explained the Anders analysis:

When appointed counsel has filed a brief indicating that no non-frivolous issues and no ruling arguably supporting an appeal were found after a conscientious review of the record, Anders requires that counsel move to withdraw. This motion will not be acted on until this court performs a thorough independent review of the record after providing the appellant an opportunity to file a brief in his or her own behalf. This court‟s review of the record will consist of (1) a review of the bill of information or indictment to insure the defendant was properly charged; (2) a review of all minute entries to insure the defendant was present at all crucial stages of the proceedings, the jury composition and verdict were correct and the sentence is legal; (3) a review of all pleadings in the record; (4) a review of the jury sheets; and (5) a review of all transcripts to determine if any ruling provides an arguable basis for appeal. Under C.Cr.P. art. 914.1(D) this Court will order that the appeal record be supplemented with pleadings, minute entries and transcripts when the record filed in this Court is not sufficient to perform this review.

While it is not necessary for Defendant‟s appellate counsel to “catalog tediously every meritless objection made at trial or by way of pre-trial motions with a labored explanation of why the objections all lack merit[,]” counsel‟s Anders brief must “„assure the court that the indigent defendant‟s constitutional rights have not been violated.‟ McCoy [v. Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, 486 U.S. [429] at 422, 108 S.Ct. [1895] at 1903 [(1988)].” State v. Jyles, 96-2669, p. 2 (La. 12/12/97), 704 So.2d 241, 241. Counsel must fully discuss and analyze the trial record and consider “whether any ruling made by the trial court, subject to the contemporaneous objection rule, had a significant, adverse impact on shaping the evidence presented to the jury for its consideration.” Id. Thus, counsel‟s Anders brief must review the procedural history and the evidence presented at trial and provide “a detailed and reviewable assessment for both the defendant and the appellate court of whether the appeal is worth pursuing in the first place.” State v. Mouton, 95-981, p. 2 (La. 4/28/95), 653 So.2d 1176, 1177.

Pursuant to Anders, 386 U.S. 738, and Jyles, 704 So.2d 241, the Defendant‟s appellate counsel filed a brief asserting there were no trial court rulings to be challenged. He claims trial counsel made no evidentiary objections regarding the introduction of documentary and physical evidence, no objection or challenge to the DNA matched to Defendant, and no challenge to the reliability or suggestiveness of the photographic line-up.

Appellate counsel asserts Defendant admitted the knife found at the scene belonged to him. Appellate counsel also asserts Defendant admitted he was familiar with the hotel where the robbery occurred and could have been there on the date of the offense. Appellate counsel further asserts Defendant admitted, during sentencing, that he was the person who committed the offense.

After examining the record, we find appellate counsel‟s assertions are correct. However, trial counsel objected during jury selection to the dismissal of prospective juror Paul Simon, who was excused by the trial court, without reasons, after he stated: “I don‟t feel like I‟m obligated to convict anyone.” Trial counsel also objected to the manner in which backstrikes were used. These objections were made after the jury was sworn. Thus, any error regarding these issues was not preserved for review on appeal, as the objections thereto were untimely made. See State v. Snyder, 98-1078 (La. 4/14/99), 750 So.2d 832; State v. Morris, 429 So.2d 111 (La. 1983); State v. Bazile, 386 So.2d 349 (La. 1980).

Pursuant to Anders, 386 U.S. 738, and Benjamin, 573 So.2d 528, we have performed a thorough review of the record, including pleadings, minute entries, the charging instrument, and the transcripts and have confirmed the statements made by appellate counsel. Defendant was properly charged in the bill of information, he was present and represented by counsel at all crucial stages of the proceedings, and the jury composition and verdict were correct.3 Additionally, Defendant received a legal sentence.

Our review of the record reveals no issues that would support an assignment of error on appeal. Therefore, Defendant‟s conviction and sentence are affirmed, and appellate counsel‟s motion to withdraw is granted.

DECREE

For the foregoing reasons, appellate counsel‟s motion to withdraw is granted. Defendant‟s conviction and sentence are affirmed.

CONVICTION AND SENTENCE AFFIRMED; MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED.