State of Louisiana v. David Javon Arceneaux AKA David Arceneaux

Opinion

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

19-60

STATE OF LOUISIANA

VERSUS

DAVID JAVON ARCENEAUX AKA DAVID ARCENEAUX

**********

ON REMAND

**********

APPEAL FROM THE

SIXTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF IBERIA, NO. 17-240 HONORABLE CURTIS SIGUR, DISTRICT JUDGE

**********

PER CURIAM

**********

Court composed of Elizabeth A. Pickett, D. Kent Savoie, and Candyce G. Perret, Judges.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

Alfred F. Boustany, II Boustany Law Firm P. O. Box 4626 Lafayette, LA 70502 (337) 261-0225 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT:

David Javon Arceneaux

M. Bofill Duhe District Attorney, Sixteenth Judicial District W. Claire Howington Assistant District Attorney 300 Iberia St., Suite 200 New Iberia, LA 70560 (337) 369-4420 COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE:

State of Louisiana

Jeffrey M. Landry Attorney General Colin Clark Chief of the Criminal Appellate Section J. Taylor Gray Assistant Attorney General P. O. Box 94005 Baton Rouge, LA 70804 (225) 326-6200 COUNSEL FOR OTHER APPELLEE:

State of Louisiana Department of Justice

PER CURIAM.

The defendant was found guilty of three counts of attempted manslaughter,

one count of attempted armed robbery, and one count of distribution of marijuana

by a non-unanimous jury verdict. This court affirmed his conviction on

appeal. State v. Arceneaux, 19-60 (La.App. 3 Cir. 10/9/19)(unpublished

opinion). The defendant filed a writ of certiorari in the Louisiana Supreme

Court. While that application was pending, the United States Supreme Court

issued an opinion finding non-unanimous jury verdicts violative of the Sixth

Amendment to the United States Constitution, and that prohibition applies to the

states by incorporation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Ramos v. Louisiana, 509

U.S. ___, 140 S.Ct. 1390 (2020). The Louisiana Supreme Court remanded the

matter to this court to reconsider our opinion in light of Ramos. State v. Arceneaux,

20-125 (La. 6/3/20), ___ So.3d ___.

As a result of the clear holding in Ramos, we find the defendant’s

convictions must be reversed. The case is remanded to the district court for a new

trial.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

This opinion is NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION.

Uniform Rules−Courts of Appeal, Rule 2−16.3.