State Of Louisiana v. Timothy Paul Pugh ( 2021 )

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL
FIRST CIRCUIT
NO. 2020 KA 0985
G
y
STATE OF LOUISIANA
VERSUS
TIMOTHY PAUL PUGH
Judgment Rendered:
FEB 1 9 2021
Appealed from the 19th Judicial District Court
In and for the Parish of East Baton Rouge
State of Louisiana
Suit No. 05- 16- 0672
The Honorable Bonnie Jackson, Judge Presiding
xBe r dc
Hillar C. Moore, III Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellee
District Attorney State of Louisiana
Allison Miller Rutzen
Assistant District Attorney
Baton Rouge, Louisiana
Holli Herrle-Castillo Counsel for Defendant/Appellant
Marrero, Louisiana Timothy Paul Pugh
BEFORE: GUIDRY, McCLENDON, AND LANIER, JJ.
LANIER, J.
The defendant, Timothy Paul Pugh, was charged by bill of information with
armed robbery ( with use of a firearm), violations of La. R.S. 14: 64 and La. R.S.
14: 64. 3 ( count 1); aggravated criminal damage to property, a violation of La. R.S.
14: 55 ( count 2); and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, a violation of La.
1
R.S. 14: 95. 1 ( count 3). The defendant pled not guilty to all counts. Trial
commenced, the jury became deadlocked, and the trial court declared a mistrial.
At his second jury trial, the defendant was found guilty on all charges by an
eleven -to -ane verdict on each count. On count 1, the defendant was sentenced to
fifteen years imprisonment at hard labor without the benefit of parole, probation, or
suspension of sentence, plus the enhanced penalty of five years imprisonment at
hard labor without the benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence, to be
served consecutive to the fifteen -year sentence. On count 2, the defendant was
sentenced to five years imprisonment at hard labor. This sentence on count 2 was
ordered to run consecutive to count 1 sentence, but concurrent to the sentence on
count 3. On count 3, the defendant was sentenced to ten years imprisonment at
hard labor without the benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence. This
sentence was ordered to run concurrently with the other sentences. The defendant
now appeals, designating two assignments of error. In his first assignment of error,
the defendant challenges his convictions by non -unanimous jury verdicts. In his
second assignment of error, the defendant argues the trial court erred in denying
his motion for new trial based on an improperly constituted jury venire.
In Ramos v. Louisiana, _ U.S. _, _, 140 S. Ct. 1390, 1397, 206 L.Ed.2d
583 ( 2020), the United States Supreme Court overruled Apodaca v. Oregon,' 406
I
The defendant had also been charged with illegal use of weapons or dangerous
instrumentalities, a violation of La. R.S. 14: 94, but prior to trial, the State dismissed this charge.
2 Oregon's non -unanimous jury verdict provision of its state constitution was challenged in
Apodaca. Johnson v. Louisiana, 406 U.S. 356, 92 S. Ct. 1620, 32 L.Ed.2d 152 ( 1972), decided
2
U.S. 404, 92 S. Ct. 1628, 32 L.Ed.2d 184 ( 1972),
and held that the right to a jury
trial under the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution, incorporated
against the States by way of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States
Constitution, requires a unanimous verdict to convict a defendant of a serious
offense.
The Ramos Court further noted that its ruling applied to those defendants
convicted of felonies by nonunanimous verdicts whose cases are still pending on
direct appeal. Ramos, 140 S. Ct. at 1406.
Accordingly, all of the defendant's convictions and sentences are set aside,
and the case is remanded for a new trial The other issue raised on appeal is
rendered moot.
CONVICTIONS AND SENTENCES SET ASIDE; REMANDED FOR NEW
TRIAL.
with Apodaca, upheld Louisiana's then -existing constitutional and statutory provisions allowing
nine -to -three jury verdicts.
M