State Of Louisiana v. Michael Lee Jackson ( 2020 )

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
STATE OF LOUISIANA
01
COURT OF APPEAL
FIRST CIRCUIT
2019 KA 0067R
STATE OF LOUISIANA
VERSUS
MICHAEL LEE JACKSON
Judgment rendered:
SEP 18 2020
On Appeal from the
Nineteenth Judicial District Court
In and for the Parish of East Baton Rouge
State of Louisiana
No. 09- 16- 0008, Sec. II
The Honorable Richard D. Anderson, Judge Presiding
Hillar C. Moore, III Attorneys for Appellee,
District Attorney State of Louisiana
Stacy L. Wright
Assistant District Attorney
Baton Rouge, Louisiana
Lieu Vo Clark Attorney for Defendant/Appellant
Louisiana Appellate Project Michael Lee Jackson
Mandeville, Louisiana
BEFORE: McCLENDON, WELCH, AND HOLDRIDGE, JJ.
HOLDRIDGE, J.
Defendant, Michael Lee Jackson, was charged by bill of information with
video voyeurism, a violation of La. R. S. 14: 283. He pled not guilty. After a trial
by jury, defendant was found guilty as charged by a non -unanimous jury verdict.
The trial court adjudicated defendant as a fourth -felony habitual offender and
imposed a term of 80 years imprisonment at hard labor. Defendant' s conviction
and sentence are vacated, and we remand to the trial court for a new trial.
This court affirmed defendant' s conviction and sentence on appeal. State v.
Jackson, 2019- 0067 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 9/ 27/ 19), 2019 WL 4739241, at * 4
unpublished). However, the Louisiana Supreme Court granted defendant' s writ
application and remanded the case to this court " for further proceedings in light of
Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U.S. , 140 S. Ct. 1390, 206 L.Ed.2d 583 ( 2020)."
State v. Jackson, 2019- 02023 ( La. 6/ 12/ 20), So. 3d , 2020 WL 3424906.
In the event the " non -unanimous jury claim was not preserved for review in the
trial court," the Supreme Court ordered this court to " consider the issue as part of
an error patent review." Id.; see La. Code Crim. P. art. 920( 2).
Defendant did not object to the verdict or challenge the constitutionality of
the verdict in the trial court below, however, on error patent review, the minutes
reveal the jury verdict was eleven -to -one.'
In Ramos, 140 S. Ct. at 1397, the United States Supreme Court overruled
Apodaca v. Oregon, 2 406 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
Defendant did raise the claim in his original appeal.
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
with Apodaca, upheld Louisiana' s then -existing constitutional and statutory provisions allowing
nine -to -three jury verdicts.
2
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 non -unanimous verdicts
whose cases are still pending on direct appeal. Ramos, 140 S. Ct. at 1406. Thus,
given the Ramos Court' s declaration of the unconstitutionality of non -unanimous
jury verdicts, defendant' s conviction and sentence based on a non -unanimous jury
verdict must be vacated.
CONCLUSION
For these reasons, we vacate defendant' s conviction and sentence and
remand to the trial court for a new trial.
CONVICTION AND SENTENCE VACATED; REMANDED FOR
NEW TRIAL.
C