State Of Louisiana v. Claude Wayne Bennett ( 2020 )

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL
FIRST CIRCUIT
2020 KA 0028
STATE OF LOUISIANA
VERSUS
CLAUDE WAYNE BENNETT
r
Decision Rendered: JUL 2 4 2020
r
APPEALED FROM THE
22ND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
ST. TAMMANY PARISH, LOUISIANA
DOCKET NUMBER 560638, DIVISION J
HONORABLE WILLIAM J. KNIGHT, JUDGE
Gwendolyn K. Brown Attorney for Defendant/ Appellant
Louisiana Appellate Project Claude Wayne Bennett
Baton Rouge, Louisiana
Warren L. Montgomery Attorneys for Appellee
District Attorney State of Louisiana
and
J. Bryant Clark Jr.
Assistant District Attorney
Covington, Louisiana
BEFORE: McDONALD, THERIOT, and CHUTZ, 33.
McDONALD, J.
The State charged the defendant, Claude Wayne Bennett, with molestation of a
juvenile ( when the victim is under thirteen years old) ( Count I), and molestation of a
juvenile ( when the offender has control or supervision over the juvenile) ( Count II),
violations of La. R. S. 14: 81. 2. He pled not guilty on both counts. Following a trial, a
jury found him guilty as charged on both counts. On Count I, the trial court sentenced
him to 25 years imprisonment at hard labor, without benefit of probation, parole, or
suspension of sentence.' On Count II, the trial court sentenced him to five years
imprisonment at hard labor. The defendant now appeals, raising two assignments of
error. For the following reasons, we vacate the convictions and sentences and remand
to the district court.
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF NON -UNANIMOUS VERDICT
In assignment of error number two, the defendant argues the non -unanimous
verdicts to convict him violated his rights under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to
the United States Constitution.
Before trial, the defendant filed a written motion to declare Louisiana Code of
2
Criminal Procedure article 782 ( prior to its amendment in 2018) unconstitutional, arguing :
The non -unanimous jury verdict under the old law and as applied to
the defendant's] case should be declared unconstitutional under both the
United States Constitution and the Louisiana Constitution as a violation of
equal protection, due process, and the right to a fair trial. Furthermore[,]
the [ statute] as enacted is discriminatory in intent and effect and should be
found unconstitutional.
After the jury retired for deliberations, the trial court denied the motion. Later,
after the jury returned its verdict, the trial court ordered that the jurors be polled and the
polling results were sealed. See La. C. Cr. P. art. 812. The jury voted 11 -to -1 to convict on
Count I, and 10 -to -2 to convict on Count II.
1 The minutes reflect that, on Count I, the trial court sentenced defendant to 25 years imprisonment at
hard labor. The transcript, however, reflects that the trial court sentenced defendant to 25 years
imprisonment at hard labor, without benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence. When there
is a discrepancy between the minutes and the transcript, the transcript prevails. State v. Lynch, 441 So. 2d
732, 734 ( La. 1983).
z The defendant also challenged the non -unanimous verdicts in a motion for new trial, which the trial
court denied.
2
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,
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 United States Constitution Sixth Amendment, incorporated against the States by
way of the Fourteenth Amendment, 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. Summer/in, 542
U. S. 348, 351, 124 S. Ct. 2519, 2522, 159 L. Ed. 2d 442 ( 2004) ( observing that when 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. My/es, 19- 0965 ( La. App. 4 Cir.
4/ 29/ 20), 2020 WL 2069885. Accordingly, assignment of error number two has merit.
CONCLUSION
For the above reasons, we vacate defendant's convictions and sentences on Counts
I and II and remand this case to the trial court. We pretermit consideration of assignment
of error number one.
CONVICTIONS AND SENTENCES VACATED; REMANDED.
3