State Of Louisiana v. Anthony Christopher Dearmas ( 2020 )

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL
FIRST CIRCUIT
2019 KA 1609
STATE OF LOUISIANA
VERSUS
ANTHONY CHRISTOPHER DEARMAS
Judgment Rendered: " JUL* 2 4 2020
APPEALED FROM THE
TWENTY- SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
IN AND FOR THE PARISH OF ST. TAMMANY
STATE OF LOUISIANA
DOCKET NUMBER 590, 763, DIVISION H
HONORABLE ALAN A. ZAUNBRECHER, JUDGE
Warren L. Montgomery Attorneys for Appellee
District Attorney State of Louisiana
And
J. Bryant Clark, Jr.
Assistant District Attorney
Covington, Louisiana
Lieu T. Vo Clark Attorney for Defendant/Appellant
Mandeville, Louisiana Anthony Christopher Dearmas
BEFORE: McDONALD, THERIOT, AND CHUTZ, JJ.
McDONALD, I
Defendant, Anthony Christopher Dearmas, was charged by bill of indictment
with first degree murder, a violation of La. R.S. 14: 30. He pled not guilty and not
guilty by reason of insanity. The case proceeded to a trial by jury, and defendant
filed a written motion asking that a unanimous jury be required for a conviction
before the case was sent to the jury for deliberations, which was denied by the trial
court. After the trial, defendant was found guilty as charged by a vote of eleven of
the twelve jurors. Defendant again raised the issue of a requirement for a unanimous
jury in a motion for new trial, which was denied by the trial court.
The trial court imposed a term of life imprisonment at hard labor, to be served
without the benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence. Defendant now
appeals assigning as error the trial court' s determinations as to the constitutionality
of his conviction by a non -unanimous jury verdict and the retroactivity of the recent
amendments to La. Const. art. I, §17( A) and La. Code Crim. P. art. 782( A).
However, in the recent decision of Ramos v. Louisiana, _ U.S. _, 140
S. Ct. 1390, 1397, _ L.Ed.2d _ ( 2020), the United States Supreme Court overruled
Apodaca v. Oregon' 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 indicated that its ruling may require retrial of those defendants convicted of
felonies by non -unanimous verdicts whose cases are still pending on direct appeal.
Ramos, 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 when a decision of the
1 Oregon' s non -unanimous jury verdict provision of its state constitution was challenged in
Apodaca v. Oregon, 406 U. S. 404, 412- 13, 92 S. Ct. 1628, 1634, 32 L.Ed.2d 184 ( 1972).
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.
0
United States Supreme Court results in a new rule, that rule applies to all criminal
cases still pending on direct review); State v. Myles, 19- 0965 ( La. App. 4 Cir.
4/ 29/ 20), 2020 WL 2069885, at * 1.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, defendant' s conviction and sentence are set aside, and the case
is remanded for a new trial. We pretermit consideration of the other issue raised on
appeal regarding the retroactivity of the recent amendments to La. Const. art. I,
17( A) and La. Code Crim. P. art. 782( A).
CONVICTION AND SENTENCE SET ASIDE; REMANDED FOR
NEW TRIAL.
3