The opinion
THIBODEAUX, Chief Judge,
concurring for additional reasons.
| ,1 write a separate concurrence to express the abandonment of my previous reliance on State v. R.W.W., 06-1253 (La.App. 3 Cir. 3/7/07) , 953 So.2d 131 , which conditionally affirms a defendant’s conviction and sentence, but remands the case to the trial court to conduct an evidentiary hearing to determine the voluntariness of a plea. I now rely on the procedure utilized in this case based on State v. Clark, 97-1064 (La.App. 3 Cir. 4/1/98) , 711 So.2d 738 and State v. Fuslier, 06-1438 (La.App. 3 Cir. 4/4/07) , 954 So.2d 866 . State v. Clark and State v. Fustier mandate a remand to the trial court to conduct an evidentiary hearing to determine the voluntariness of a plea without conditionally affirming the defendant’s conviction and sentence.
For the foregoing reasons, I additionally concur.