State Of Louisiana v. Brandon Boyd ( 2020 )

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL
FIRST CIRCUIT
2017 KA 0014R2
STATE OF LOUISIANA
VERSUS
BRANDON BOYD
Judgment Rendered: SEP 2 5 2020
Appealed Brom the
Nineteenth Judicial District Court
In and for the Parish of East Baton Rouge
State of Louisiana
Docket Number 06- 14- 0783
Honorable Beau Higginbotham, Judge Presiding
Hillar C. Moore, III Counsel for Appellee,
Cristopher J.M. Caster State of Louisiana
Baton Rouge, LA
Michael A. Fiser Counsel for Defendant/Appellant,
Baton Rouge, LA Brandon Boyd
BEFORE: WHIPPLE, C.J., McDONALD, AND CHUTZ, JJ.
f
WHIPPLE, C.J.
The defendant, Brandon Boyd, was charged by grand jury indictment with
one count of second degree murder, a violation of LSA-R.S. 14: 30. 1. He pled not
guilty and was subsequently found competent to stand trial. Following a trial by
jury, he was found guilty as charged. The district court imposed a term of life
imprisonment at hard labor, to be served without the benefit of probation, parole,
or suspension of sentence.
On appeal to this court, the defendant argued that the evidence was
insufficient to support his conviction and that his sentence was excessive. State v.
Boyd, 2017- 0014 ( La. App. Ist Cir. 9/ 15/ 17), 2017 WL 4082248, * 1. On review,
this court found that the evidence was sufficient, but pretermitted consideration of
whether the defendant' s sentence was excessive because we found the defendant
had not expressly waived the twenty- four hour delay between sentencing and
denial of his motions for new trial and post -verdict judgment of acquittal, as
required by LSA-C. CrR art. 873. Boyd, 2017 WL 4082248 at * 3 -* 4.
Accordingly, we affirmed the conviction, vacated the sentence, and remanded to
the district court for resentencing. Boyd, 2017 WL 40$224$ at * 4.
On review, the Louisiana Supreme Court concluded that defendant
explicitly waived the sentencing delay had occurred, and, therefore, reversed our
previous opinion, reinstated the sentence, and remanded to this court for
consideration of any pretennitted claims. State v. Boyd, 2017- 1749 ( La. 8/ 31/ 18),
251 So. 3d 407, 408 ( per curiam). On initial remand, we affirmed the defendant' s
sentence. State v. Boyd, 2017- 0014R ( La. App. 1st Cir. 5/ 9/ 19), 2019 WL
2051932, * 3.
Following the United States Supreme Court ruling in Ramos v. Louisiana,
590 U. S. 140 S. Ct. 1390, 206 L. Ed. 2d 583 ( 2020), the Louisiana Supreme
2
Court granted certiorari and again remanded this case to this court for further
proceedings and to conduct a new error patent review in light of Ramos. State v.
Boyd, 2019- 00953 ( La. 6/ 3/ 20), 296 So. 3d 1024, 1025 ( per curiam). The
Louisiana Supreme Court further instructed "[ i] f the non -unanimous jury claim
was not preserved for review in the trial court or was abandoned during any stage
of the proceedings, the court of appeal should nonetheless consider the issue as
part of its error patent review. See La. C. Cr.P. art. 920( 2)." Boyd, 296 So. 3d at
1025. For the following reasons, we vacate the conviction and sentence and
remand to the district court.
PATENT ERROR REVIEW
Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure article 920( 2) requires that all appeals
be reviewed for errors patent on the face of the record. State v. Duhon, 2018- 0593
La. App. 1st Cir. 12/ 28/ 18), 270 So. 3d 597, 635, writ denied, 2019- 0124 ( La.
5/ 28/ 19), 273 So. 3d 315. A patent error is "[ a] n error that is discoverable by a mere
inspection of the pleadings and proceedings and without inspection of the
evidence." LSA-C. Cr.P. art. 920( 2).
A review of the trial minutes in this case indicates that following the return of
the verdict, the jurors were polled and ten jurors voted "[ y] es -- Guilty[,]" while two
jurors voted "[ n] o — Not guilty."
In Ramos, 590 U.S. at , 140 S. Ct. at 1397, the United States Supreme
Court overruled Apodaca v. Oregon, 406 U.S. 404, 92 S. Ct. 1628, 32 L. Ed. 2d 1841972), 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
3
whose cases are still pending on direct appeal. Ramos, 590 U. S. at , 140 S. Ct.
at 1406. See also Schriro v. Summerlin, 542 U.S. 348, 351, 124 S. Ct. 2519, 2522,
159 L. Ed. 2d 442 ( 2004) ( observing that "[ w]hen a decision of [the United States
Supreme Court] results in a `` new rule,' that rule applies to all criminal cases still
pending on direct review"); State v. Bennett, 2020- 0028 (La. App. 1 st Cir. 7/ 24/ 20),
So. 3d , 2020 WL 4250992; State v. Dearmas, 2019- 1609 ( La. App. 1 st Cir.
7/ 24/ 20), So. 3d , 2020 WL 4250862.
In the instant case, we note patent error in the nonunanimous verdict of guilty
of second degree murder. Further, the nonunanimous verdict prejudiced the
defendant and affected his substantial rights because it resulted in his conviction
contrary to Ramos. See LSA-C. Cr.P. art. 921 a] judgment ... shall not be
reversed by an appellate court because of any error, ... which does not affect
substantial rights of the accused."); c£
State v. Hilton, 99- 1239 ( La. App. lst Cir.
3/ 31/ 00), 764 So. 2d 1027, 1038, writ denied, 2000- 0958 ( La. 3/ 9/ 01), 786 So. 2d
113. Accordingly, the defendant' s conviction and sentence are vacated, and this
case is remanded to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this
opinion.
CONVICTION AND SENTENCE VACATED; REMANDED.
0