State of Louisiana v. Nicholas Williams

• Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
• Decided: August 21, 2024
• Docket: 2024-K-0464
• Status: Published

Opinion

STATE OF LOUISIANA * NO. 2024-K-0464

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

APPLICATION FOR WRITS DIRECTED TO CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT ORLEANS PARISH NO. 559-245, SECTION “D” Judge Kimya M. Holmes, ****** Judge Sandra Cabrina Jenkins ****** (Court composed of Chief Judge Terri F. Love, Judge Sandra Cabrina Jenkins, Judge Tiffany Gautier Chase)

Jason Williams DISTRICT ATTORNEY Brad Scott Assistant District Attorney Orleans Parish District Attorney’s Office 619 S. White St. New Orleans, LA 70119

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT

Jerome Matthews Matthews Law Office, LLC 724 11th Street Gretna, LA 70053

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/RELATOR

WRIT GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED; REMANDED. AUGUST 21, 2024 SCJ TFL TGC

The defendant, Nicholas Williams, filed the present application for

supervisory writs seeking review of the trial court’s ruling of June 28, 2024,

denying his motion for new trial. We grant the writ application for the limited

purpose of remanding this matter to the trial court for the foregoing reasons.

The defendant was charged by bill of information with one count of

aggravated battery on September 1, 2023. The defendant entered a plea of not

guilty at his arraignment on October 18, 2023. After a jury trial on June 3, 2024,

the defendant was convicted of aggravated battery. The defendant filed a motion

for new trial on June 17, 2024. The trial court denied the motion for new trial on

June 28, 2024. At the hearing on June 28, 2024, the defendant objected to the trial

court’s ruling and orally noticed his intent to seek a supervisory writ. The trial

court noted the objection and set a return of July 29, 2024, to file an application for

supervisory writs. The defendant filed his application for supervisory writs with

this Court on July 29, 2024.

The defendant asserts several bases for his motion for new trial, including

the use of a six-person jury, the imposition of firearm sentencing enhancement and

1 ineffective assistance of counsel at trial. La. C.Cr.P. article 8511 provides the

grounds upon which a new trial should be granted.

A defendant has the right to appeal a judgment of the trial court. La.

C.Cr.P. article 911. La. C.Cr.P. article 912.1(B)(1) provides that a “defendant may

appeal to the court of appeal from a judgment in a criminal case triable by

jury.” See also La. Const. art. V, § 10; State v. Pernell, 2013-0180 (La. App. 4

Cir. 10/2/13), 127 So.3d 18. La. Const. art. I, § 19 guarantees a criminal defendant

“judicial review based upon a complete record of all evidence upon which the

judgment is based.” Pernell, 2013–0180, p. 10, 127 So.3d at 27. “The scope of

what constitutes a ‘complete record’ under Article I, Section 19 encompasses ‘all

of the proceedings, including the examination of prospective jurors, the testimony

of witnesses, statements, rulings, orders, and charges by the court, and objections,

1 La. C.Cr.P. article 851 states:

A. The motion for a new trial is based on the supposition that injustice has been done the defendant, and, unless such is shown to have been the case the motion shall be denied, no matter upon what allegations it is grounded. B. The court, on motion of the defendant, shall grant a new trial whenever any of the following occur: (1) The verdict is contrary to the law and the evidence. (2) The court's ruling on a written motion, or an objection made during the proceedings, shows prejudicial error. (3) New and material evidence that, notwithstanding the exercise of reasonable diligence by the defendant, was not discovered before or during the trial, is available, and if the evidence had been introduced at the trial it would probably have changed the verdict or judgment of guilty. (4) The defendant has discovered, since the verdict or judgment of guilty, a prejudicial error or defect in the proceedings that, notwithstanding the exercise of reasonable diligence by the defendant, was not discovered before the verdict or judgment. (5) The court is of the opinion that the ends of justice would be served by the granting of a new trial, although the defendant may not be entitled to a new trial as a matter of strict legal right. (6) The defendant is a victim of human trafficking or trafficking of children for sexual purposes and the acts for which the defendant was convicted were committed by the defendant as a direct result of being a victim of the trafficking activity.

2 questions, statements, and arguments of counsel.’” State v. Small, 2013-1334, p. 17

(La. App. 4 Cir. 8/27/14), 147 So.3d 1274, 1285 (quoting La. C.Cr.P. article 843).

The defendant’s conviction by a jury constitutes a final appealable judgment.

We, therefore, grant the writ application for the limited purpose of remanding the

matter to the trial court for the purpose of allowing the defendant the opportunity

to perfect his notice appeal based upon his June 3, 2024 conviction and his

eventual sentence in this matter.2 See La. C.Cr.P. article 914.

Accordingly, the defendant’s application for supervisory writs is granted, the

relief requested is denied, and this matter is remanded for proceedings consistent

with this opinion.

WRIT GRANTED; RELIED DENIED. REMANDED.

2 At the time of the filing of defendant’s application, he had not been sentenced. Sentencing is currently scheduled on September 20, 2024.