State of Louisiana v. Alfred Green

• Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
• Decided: October 26, 2023
• Docket: 2023-K-0643
• Status: Published

Opinion

STATE OF LOUISIANA * NO. 2023-K-0643

VERSUS * COURT OF APPEAL ALFRED GREEN * FOURTH CIRCUIT * STATE OF LOUISIANA *******

ON SUPERVISORY WRIT FROM THE CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT ORLEANS PARISH NO. 466-984, SECTION “D” Judge Kimya M. Holmes, ****** Judge Paula A. Brown ****** (Court composed of Chief Judge Terri F. Love, Judge Joy Cossich Lobrano, Judge Paula A. Brown)

Jason Rogers Williams District Attorney Brad Scott Chief of Appeals Orleans Parish 619 S. White Street New Orleans, LA 70119

COUNSEL FOR STATE OF LOUISIANA/ RESPONDENT

Alfred Green #427445 Dixon Correctional Institute P. O. Box 788 Unit I; Dorm-J Jackson, LA 70748

PRO SE DEFENDANT/ RELATOR

WRIT GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED OCTOBER 26, 2023 PAB TFL JCL

Relator, Alfred Green (“Relator”), seeks review of the district court’s

September 18, 2023 summary disposition, which denied Relator’s application for

post-conviction relief. For the reasons that follow, we grant Relator’s writ

application, but the requested relief is denied.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Relator was charged by grand jury indictment on October 4, 2006, with armed

robbery, a violation of La. R.S. 14:64.1 That same day, Relator’s co-conspirator,

Ladoia Smith (“Mr. Smith”) (collectively “Defendants”), was charged by grand jury

indictment with armed robbery and simple robbery, a violation of La. R.S. 14:65. 2

1La. R.S. 14:64(A) provides “[a]rmed robbery is the taking of anything of value belonging to

another from the person of another or that is in the immediate control of another, by use of force or intimidation, while armed with a dangerous weapon.” 2La. R.S. 14:65 provides:

A. Simple robbery is either of the following: (1) The taking of anything of value belonging to another from the person of another or that is in the immediate control of another, by use of force or intimidation, but not armed with a dangerous weapon. (2) The taking of anything of value when a person is part of a group of three or more individuals and the person has the intent to take anything of value from a retail establishment that is in the immediate control of a retail employee or

1 On June 12, 2007, following a jury trial, Relator was found guilty of armed robbery,

and Mr. Smith was found guilty of simple robbery. On July 26, 2007, Mr. Smith was

sentenced to seven years at hard labor. On August 24, 2007, Relator was sentenced

to forty years at hard labor without the benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of

sentence. Thereafter, Defendants filed an appeal with this Court, arguing that the

evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support their convictions. In an

unpublished opinion rendered on July 23, 2008, this Court affirmed the convictions

and sentences of Defendants. See State v. Smith, unpub., 07-1429 (La. App. 4 Cir.

7/23/08), 2008 WL 8922921, at *1 (holding that “any rational trier of fact could have

found beyond a reasonable doubt all of the essential elements of the offense of armed

robbery were present, including, necessarily, that [Relator] was the individual who

robbed the victim” and that “any rational trier of fact could have found beyond a

reasonable doubt that [Mr. Smith] was a principal to the crime of armed robbery”).

In May of 2021, Relator filed his first application for post-conviction relief

and motion for order to unseal polling sheets of the jury. Thereafter, the district

court’s clerk’s office produced the polling sheets of the jury, and the State filed its

response to Relator’s application. The district court denied Relator’s application for

post-conviction relief on March 9, 2023.

On May 16, 2023, Relator filed his second application for post-conviction

relief. Relator also filed, on June 30, 2023, his second motion for order to unseal

polling sheets of the jury. Relator filed an application for writ of mandamus with this

employer and there is a reasonable belief that a reasonable person would not intercede because of fear.

2 Court on September 6, 2023, alleging that the district court failed to timely act on

his second application for post-conviction relief. This Court granted the writ and

ordered the district court to consider and act upon Relator’s application for post-

conviction relief. Thereafter, on September 18, 2023, the district court issued its

ruling, denying post-conviction relief without a hearing on the issues raised in the

application pursuant to La.C.Cr.P. art. 929(A). 3 Relator is now seeking supervisory

review of the district court’s denial of his second application for post-conviction

relief.

DISCUSSION

In his application for supervisory review, Relator asserts two assignments of

error:

1. The District Court abused its discretion, violating Petitioner’s substantial rights, by entering a Summary Disposition denying relief after reviewing the polling slips in camera. This was done sua sponte citing La. C.Cr.P. art. 929(A), without first receiving the State’s answer to Petitioner’s Application for Post-conviction Relief, or providing Petitioner with a copy of the answer or the polling slips.

2. The Court should have gave [sic] an opinion on the merits of the claim and argument where the State itself had raised no procedural objections.

“The standard of review of a [district] court’s ruling on an application for post-

conviction relief is abuse of discretion.” State v. Henry, 20-0412, p. 13 (La. App. 4

3La. C.Cr.P. art. 929(A) provides:

If the court determines that the factual and legal issues can be resolved based upon the application and answer, and supporting documents, including relevant transcripts, depositions, and other reliable documents submitted by either party or available to the court, the court may grant or deny relief without further proceedings.

3 Cir. 10/29/20), 307 So.3d 249, 257 (citing State v. Jones, unpub., 08-0516 (La. App.

4 Cir. 2/11/09), 2009 WL 8684639, at *4).

Assignment of Error No. 1

In his first assignment of error, Relator contends that the district court erred

in entering a summary disposition without first providing him with a copy of the

State’s answer to his application or a copy of the polling sheets of the jury. In his

second application for post-conviction relief filed with the district court, Relator

argued that his conviction was the result of a non-unanimous jury verdict; therefore,

the decision in Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U.S. ___, 140 S. Ct. 1390, 206 L.Ed.2d 583

(2020), should be applied retroactively to his case. However, this argument must fail

for two reasons. First, in its summary disposition denying relief, the district court

determined that “after unsealing polling slips and examining the slips in camera …

Relator’s verdict was unanimous.” And, under La. C.Cr.P. art. 928, an “application

[for post-conviction relief] may be dismissed without an answer if the application

fails to allege a claim which, if established, would entitle the petitioner to relief.”

Based on its review of the polling slips, the district court found that Relator was not

entitled to relief based on the claim alleged in his application. As Relator was not

entitled to relief, it was within the district court’s discretion to deny the application

for post-conviction relief without first receiving an answer from the State.

Secondly, the Louisiana Supreme Court has recently held that “the new rule

of criminal procedure announced in Ramos that requires unanimity in jury verdicts

is not retroactive on state collateral review in Louisiana.” State v. Reddick, 21-01893,

4 p. 16 (La. 10/21/22), 351 So.3d 273, 283. Since Relator’s conviction and sentence

were final, this matter came before the district court on collateral review. In keeping

with this state’s jurisprudence, the district court held that the Ramos decision should

not be applied retroactively to Relator’s conviction. For these reasons, we find that

the district court did not abuse its discretion by entering a summary disposition

denying Relator’s application for post-conviction relief.

Assignment of Error No. 2

In his second assignment of error, Relator contends that the district court erred

in not giving him an opinion on the merits of his claim. We find this argument to be

without merit, because the district court addressed both the unanimity of his verdict

and the inapplicability of the Ramos decision to be applied retroactively to his

conviction.

DECREE

Based on the foregoing, we find that the district court did not abuse its

discretion in summarily denying post-conviction relief to Relator.

WRIT GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED