State of Louisiana v. Clifford Williams

• Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
• Decided: October 29, 2020
• Docket: 2018-KA-0445
• Status: Published

Opinion

STATE OF LOUISIANA * NO. 2018-KA-0445

VERSUS * COURT OF APPEAL CLIFFORD WILLIAMS * FOURTH CIRCUIT * STATE OF LOUISIANA *******

APPEAL FROM CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT ORLEANS PARISH NO. 516-674, SECTION “J” Honorable Darryl A. Derbigny, Judge ****** Judge Dale N. Atkins ****** ON REMAND FROM THE LOUISIANA SUPREME COURT

(Court composed of Judge Terri F. Love, Judge Joy Cossich Lobrano, Judge Dale N. Atkins)

Leon Cannizzaro Donna Andrieu Irena Zajickova DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE ORLEANS PARISH 619 S. White Street New Orleans, LA 70119

COUNSEL FOR THE STATE OF LOUISIANA/APPELLEE

Autumn A. Town LAW OFFICE OF AUTUMN TOWN, LLC 700 Camp Street New Orleans, LA 70130

Graham L. Bosworth LAW OFFICE OF GRAHAM BOSWORTH, LLC 700 Camp Street New Orleans, LA 70130

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT

REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS October 29, 2020 DNA TFL This is a criminal appeal on remand from the Louisiana Supreme Court JCL (“Supreme Court”). Clifford Williams (“Defendant”) was convicted by a jury of

second degree murder of Ralphmon Green.1 The facts of this case—wherein the

body of fifteen-year-old Ralphmon Green (“victim”) was found unresponsive with

a gunshot wound in his head in the 2100 block of Allen Street in New Orleans—

were set forth by this Court in State of Louisiana v. Clifford Williams, 2018-0445

(La. App. 4 Cir. 2/27/19), 265 So.3d 902. For the reasons set forth below, the

matter is remanded to the district court for the purpose of confirming that the

verdict was non-unanimous.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On July 18, 2013, Defendant was indicted for second degree murder of the

victim and entered a plea of not guilty. Following a two day trial, the jury returned

a verdict finding Defendant guilty of second degree murder. The trial court

subsequently sentenced Defendant to life imprisonment without the benefit of

parole, probation, or suspension of sentence.

1 The record reflects that the jury’s polling slips in this matter were filed under sealed, R., pp. 288-291. However, the jury’s polling slips were not provided in the record lodged with this Court.

1 On appeal, Defendant asserted four assignments of error: (1) the evidence

was insufficient to support his conviction for second degree murder; (2) that he

was prevented from presenting a defense because the trial court precluded the

introduction of certain evidence; (3) that his rights under Fifth and Fourteenth

Amendments of the United States Constitution were abridged by an incomplete

record on appeal; and (4) that his sentence to life imprisonment without the benefit

of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence was unconstitutionally excessive.

This Court affirmed Defendant’s conviction and sentence finding no merit to his

assignment of errors. Thereafter, Defendant sought review by the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court granted Defendant’s writ of certiorari, but ultimately affirmed

Defendant’s conviction and sentence. State v. Williams, 2019-00490 (La. 4/3/20),

___ So.3d ___, 2020 WL 1671569.

However, on July 9, 2020, the Supreme Court granted Defendant’s

rehearing application “in response to defendant’s newly raised assertion the jury’s

verdict was not unanimous.” State of Louisiana v. Clifford Williams, 2019-00490,

p. 1 (La. 7/9/20), ___ So.3d ___, 2020 WL3867126 (Mem). The Supreme Court

remanded the matter for this Court to conduct a new error patent review pursuant

to the United States Supreme Court’s ruling in Ramos v. Louisiana, 140 S.Ct.

1390, 206 L.Ed.2d 583 (2020). Id. In particular, the Supreme Court held:

The matter is remanded to the court of appeal for further proceedings and to conduct a new error patent review in light of Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U.S.____, 140 S.Ct. 1390,____L.Ed.2d____(2020). If the non-unanimous jury claim was not preserved for review in the trial court or was abandoned during any stage of the proceedings, the court of appeal should nonetheless consider the issue as part of its error patent review. See La. C.Cr.P. art. 920(2).

Id.

2 ERRORS PATENT

Since this matter was pending direct review before the Supreme

Court, the holding of Ramos applies in this matter. See Griffith v. Kentucky,

479 U.S. 314, 328, 107 S.Ct. 708, 716, 93 L.Ed.2d. 649 (1987). However,

the record before us is unclear as it relates to the jury’s verdict count. The

record does not contain the sentencing transcript. A review of the trial

transcripts reflects that no polling of the jury took place when the verdict

was rendered and the minute entry does not reflect the verdict count.

The record reflects that the jury polling slips were sealed in the district

court’s records, but was not lodged before this Court.2 To determine whether

the jury’s verdict was non-unanimous, we ordered the State and Defendant

to file supplemental briefs addressing the issue. Additionally, we ordered the

parties and the Clerk of Criminal District Court for Orleans Parish to

supplement the record before this Court with the jury’s polling slips.

However, the record has not been supplemented with jury’s polling slips, nor

has the issue been sufficiently briefed for us to determine whether the jury’s

In State v. Fortune, 2019-0868 (La. App. 4 Cir. 8/12/20), ___ So.3d

___, 2020 WL 4679040, this Court addressed a similar issue. In Fortune,

the defendant filed an appeal arguing that his conviction by a non-

unanimous jury was unconstitutional. This Court noted that the appellate

record was unclear as to whether the jury’s verdict was non-unanimous. In

particular, this Court noted that “the only evidence presented of the 10-2

verdict were the representations by the defense counsel and the prosecutor at

2 R., pp.288-291.

3 sentencing.” Fortune, 2019-0868, p. 2, __ So.3d __, 2020 WL 4679040, *1.

As such, this Court remanded the matter to the district court with

instructions to review the record to determine whether the verdict was non-

unanimous. This Court further ordered the district court file a per curiam

“addressing the Ramos issue and stating the outcome of its review.” Id.

In this matter, we find the Fortune’s Court course of action

appropriate. Unlike in Fortune, there is no evidence in the record before this

Court that reveals whether the jury verdict was non-unanimous. Thus, we

remand this matter to the district court.

DECREE

For the foregoing reasons, we remand this matter to the district court with

instructions to conduct a review for the purpose of confirming whether the jury’s

verdict was non-unanimous. Once the district court has conducted its review, the

district court shall file a per curiam within ten days of this ruling to address the

Ramos issue and providing the outcome of its review.

REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS