State of Louisiana v. Anthony Strong

Opinion

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

19-590

STATE OF LOUISIANA

VERSUS

ANTHONY STRONG

********** ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE APPEAL FROM THE NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF RAPIDES, NO. 333,679 HONORABLE LOWELL C. HAZEL, DISTRICT JUDGE

**********

PHYLLIS M. KEATY JUDGE

**********

Court composed of John D. Saunders, Phyllis M. Keaty, and D. Kent Savoie, Judges.

CONVICTION AND SENTENCE VACATED; REMANDED. J. Phillip Terrell, Jr. District Attorney Catherine L. Davidson Assistant District Attorney Post Office Box 7358 Alexandria, Louisiana 71306-7358 (318) 473-6650 Counsel for Appellee: State of Louisiana

Paula C. Marx Louisiana Appellate Project Post Office Box 82389 Lafayette, Louisiana 70598-2389 (337) 991-9757 Counsel for Defendant/Appellant: Anthony Strong

Jeff Landry Attorney General J. Taylor Gray Assistant Attorney General Louisiana Department of Justice Criminal Division Post Office Box 94005 Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70804 (225) 326-6200 Counsel for Other Respondent: Attorney General, State of Louisiana KEATY, Judge.

Defendant, Anthony Strong, was convicted of first degree robbery and was

sentenced, as a habitual offender, to forty years imprisonment at hard labor, without

benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence. He appealed his conviction

and sentence, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction

and that Louisiana’s constitutional and statutory provisions allowing a conviction

with a verdict of less than all twelve jurors violated the Equal Protection Clause of

the United States Constitution. This court affirmed his conviction and sentence. See

State v Strong, 19-590 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2/27/20) (unpublished opinion).

Defendant sought review of this court’s ruling in the supreme court. On

December 8, 2020, the supreme court remanded the case for re-examination because

it was pending on direct review when Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U.S. ___, 140 S.Ct.

1390 (2020), was decided. State v. Strong, 20-483 (La. 12/8/20), ___ So.3d ___.

In Ramos, the Supreme Court unambiguously determined that non-unanimous

verdicts are not permissible under the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution and the

prohibition applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. Defendant was

tried by a jury of twelve, and eleven of those jurors concurred in the verdict. Strong,

19-590, p. 9. It is clear that Ramos requires that Defendant’s conviction and sentence

be vacated and the case remanded for a new trial.

DECREE

Defendant’s conviction and sentence are vacated, and the case is remanded

for a new trial pursuant to Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U.S. ___, 140 S.Ct. 1390 (2020).

CONVICTION AND SENTENCE VACATED; REMANDED.

This opinion is NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. Uniform Rules—Courts of Appeal, Rule 2–16.3.