State of Louisiana Versus C. T. ( 2020 )

STATE OF LOUISIANA NO. 18-KA-650
VERSUS FIFTH CIRCUIT
C. T. COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF LOUISIANA
ON REMAND FROM THE LOUISIANA SUPREME COURT
AN APPEAL FROM THE TWENTY-FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF LOUISIANA
NO. 15-5781, DIVISION "B"
HONORABLE CORNELIUS E. REGAN, JUDGE PRESIDING
July 15, 2020
HANS J. LILJEBERG
JUDGE
Panel composed of Judges Stephen J. Windhorst,
Hans J. Liljeberg, and Timothy S. Marcel, Pro Tempore
CONVICTION AND SENTENCE VACATED;
REMANDED
HJL
SJW
TSM
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE,
STATE OF LOUISIANA
Honorable Paul D. Connick, Jr.
Terry M. Boudreaux
Juliet L. Clark
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT,
C. T.
Martin E. Regan, Jr.
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE,
STATE OF LOUISIANA, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Jeffrey M. Landry
Colin Clark
J. Taylor Gray
LILJEBERG, J.
ON REMAND FROM THE LOUISIANA SUPREME COURT
This matter comes before this Court pursuant to an order of remand from the
Louisiana Supreme Court. See State v. C.T., 19-1390 (La. 6/3/20), --- So.3d ---,
2020 WL 3424319 (per curiam). In its order, the Louisiana Supreme Court
instructed this Court to conduct a new error patent review in light of the United
States Supreme Court’s ruling in Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U.S. ---, 140 S.Ct. 1390,
-- L.Ed.2d -- (2020). For the following reasons, after review, we find that
defendant is entitled to a new trial. Accordingly, we vacate defendant’s conviction
and sentence and remand to the trial court for further proceedings.
LAW AND DISCUSSION
Defendant, C.T., was charged with aggravated rape of a known juvenile,
where the victim was under the age of thirteen, in violation of La. R.S. 14:42.1 The
punishment for this offense is necessarily confinement at hard labor, so a jury of
twelve persons was required. See La. Const. Art. I, § 17; La. C.Cr.P. art. 782; La.
R.S. 14:42. At the conclusion of defendant’s trial, a non-unanimous jury found
defendant guilty as charged by a vote of eleven to one. The trial court sentenced
defendant to life imprisonment at hard labor without benefit of parole, probation,
or suspension of sentence.
On appeal to this Court, as one of his assigned errors, defendant argued that
his conviction by a non-unanimous jury violated his Sixth Amendment right to a
fair trial.2 However, at the time of defendant’s conviction, non-unanimous jury
verdicts were permissible under La. Const. Art. I, §17, La. C.Cr.P. art. 782, and the
applicable jurisprudence. This Court affirmed defendant’s conviction and sentence
1
After the offense in this case, La. R.S. 14:42 was amended in 2015 by La. Act No. 184, to rename the
offense of aggravated rape to first degree rape.
2
In its order of remand, the Louisiana Supreme Court stated that even if the non-unanimous jury claim
was not preserved for review, this Court should consider the issue as part of its error patent review, citing
La. C.Cr.P. art. 920(2).
18-KA-650 1
on appeal, noting that the Louisiana Supreme Court and the other courts of this
state had repeatedly addressed the issue of non-unanimous jury verdicts and found
such verdicts to be constitutional.3 See State v. C.T., 18-650 (La. App. 5 Cir.
7/30/19), 279 So.3d 431, 441.
Thereafter, on April 20, 2020, the United States Supreme Court handed
down its decision in Ramos v. Louisiana, supra, finding that the Sixth Amendment
right to a jury trial—as incorporated against the states by the Fourteenth
Amendment—requires a unanimous verdict to convict a defendant of a serious
offense.4 The Court concluded: “There can be no question either that the Sixth
Amendment’s unanimity requirement applies to state and federal trials equally …
So if the Sixth Amendment’s right to a jury trial requires a unanimous verdict to
support a conviction in federal court, it requires no less in state court.”
Pursuant to the Ramos decision, Louisiana defendants who were convicted
of serious offenses by non-unanimous juries and whose cases are still pending on
direct review are now entitled to new trials. In the present case, since the verdict
was not unanimous for the serious offense of aggravated rape of a juvenile under
the age of thirteen and because the case is still on direct review, we find that
defendant is entitled to a new trial. Accordingly, we vacate defendant’s conviction
and sentence and remand to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with
this opinion.5
DECREE
3
On appeal, defendant also raised as error that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction.
After review, this Court found the sufficiency argument to be without merit. See State v. C.T., 279 So.3d
at 437.
4
For purposes of the Sixth Amendment, federal law defines petty offenses as offenses subject to
imprisonment of six months or less and serious offenses as offenses subject to imprisonment over six
months. The Sixth Amendment’s right to a jury trial only attaches to serious offenses. See generally
Lewis v. United States, 518 U.S. 322, 327-28, 116 S.Ct. 2163, 135 L.Ed.2d 590 (1996); Hill v. Louisiana,
2013 WL 486691 (E.D. La. 2013).
5
In our prior opinion in this case, this Court noted on error patent review that defendant had not been
notified at sentencing of the Louisiana’s sex offender registration requirements pursuant to La. R.S.
15:540 et seq. We remanded to the trial court to provide defendant with written notice of these
requirements. See C.T., 279 So.3d at 442. However, given our decision to vacate defendant’s conviction
and sentence, this error patent is now moot.
18-KA-650 2
For the foregoing reasons, defendant’s conviction and sentence are vacated
and the matter is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with
this opinion.
CONVICTION AND SENTENCE
VACATED; REMANDED
18-KA-650 3
SUSAN M. CHEHARDY CURTIS B. PURSELL
CHIEF JUDGE CLERK OF COURT
MARY E. LEGNON
FREDERICKA H. WICKER
CHIEF DEPUTY CLERK
JUDE G. GRAVOIS
MARC E. JOHNSON
ROBERT A. CHAISSON SUSAN BUCHHOLZ
STEPHEN J. WINDHORST
FIRST DEPUTY CLERK
HANS J. LILJEBERG
JOHN J. MOLAISON, JR. FIFTH CIRCUIT
MELISSA C. LEDET
JUDGES 101 DERBIGNY STREET (70053)
DIRECTOR OF CENTRAL STAFF
POST OFFICE BOX 489
GRETNA, LOUISIANA 70054 (504) 376-1400
(504) 376-1498 FAX
www.fifthcircuit.org
NOTICE OF JUDGMENT AND CERTIFICATE OF DELIVERY
I CERTIFY THAT A COPY OF THE OPINION IN THE BELOW-NUMBERED MATTER HAS BEEN DELIVERED
IN ACCORDANCE WITH UNIFORM RULES - COURT OF APPEAL, RULE 2-16.4 AND 2-16.5 THIS DAY
JULY 15, 2020 TO THE TRIAL JUDGE, CLERK OF COURT, COUNSEL OF RECORD AND ALL PARTIES NOT
REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL, AS LISTED BELOW:
18-KA-650
E-NOTIFIED
24TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT (CLERK)
HONORABLE CORNELIUS E. REGAN (DISTRICT JUDGE)
MARTIN E. REGAN, JR. (APPELLANT) TERRY M. BOUDREAUX (APPELLEE) JULIET L. CLARK (APPELLEE)
COLIN CLARK (APPELLEE) ANDREA F. LONG (APPELLEE) J. TAYLOR GRAY (APPELLEE)
MAILED
GRAHAM DAPONTE (APPELLANT) HON. JEFFREY M. LANDRY (APPELLEE) HON. PAUL D. CONNICK, JR. (APPELLEE)
ATTORNEY AT LAW ATTORNEY GENERAL DISTRICT ATTORNEY
2125 ST. CHARLES AVENUE LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE TWENTY-FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
NEW ORLEANS, LA 70130 1885 NORTH 3RD STREET 200 DERBIGNY STREET
6TH FLOOR, LIVINGSTON BUILDING GRETNA, LA 70053
BATON ROUGE, LA 70802