State of Louisiana v. Peter A. Grandpre, Jr.

• Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
• Decided: July 7, 2021
• Docket: 2021-KA-0041
• Status: Published

Opinion

STATE OF LOUISIANA * NO. 2021-KA-0041

VERSUS * COURT OF APPEAL PETER A. GRANDPRE, JR. * FOURTH CIRCUIT * STATE OF LOUISIANA *******

APPEAL FROM CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT ORLEANS PARISH NO. 523-303, SECTION “1” Honorable Arthur Hunter, Judge ****** Judge Tiffany G. Chase ****** (Court composed of Judge Rosemary Ledet, Judge Tiffany G. Chase, Judge Dale N. Atkins)

Jason Rogers Williams, District Attorney David B. LeBlanc, Assistant District Attorney ORLEANS PARISH 619 S. White Street New Orleans, LA 70119

COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE/STATE OF LOUISIANA

Willard J. Brown, Sr. LAW OFFICE OF W.J. BROWN 4619 S. Claiborne Avenue New Orleans, LA 70125

COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT/DEFENDANT

VACATED AND REMANDED JULY 7, 2021 TGC RML DNA This is a criminal case. The defendant, Peter Grandpre (hereinafter

“defendant”), appeals his convictions and sentences for conspiracy to distribute

heroin, conspiracy to commit second degree murder, and second degree murder.

For the following reasons, we vacate defendant’s convictions and sentences and

remand the case to the trial court.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On January 28, 2015, defendant was indicted by an Orleans Parish grand

jury of three felonies: count one, conspiracy to distribute heroin; count two,

conspiracy to commit the second degree murder of Rebecca Demuth; and count

three, second degree murder of Rebecca Demuth.1 Defendant’s jury trial occurred

October 21, 2019 through October 29, 2019. After trial, the jury found defendant

guilty as charged on all counts. A poll of the jury revealed that defendant was

convicted of conspiracy to distribute heroin by a vote of eleven to one, and

convicted of conspiracy to commit second degree murder and second degree

murder by votes of ten to two. After the verdict was rendered, defense counsel

objected to the non-unanimous jury verdicts.

1 Mr. Grandpre was indicted with a co-defendant, Anthony Eugene. Defendant is, however, the sole defendant in the appeal under review.

1 Defendant filed a motion for new trial on December 3, 2019, arguing that he

was entitled to a new trial because his guilty verdicts were rendered by a non-

unanimous jury. The trial court denied defendant’s motion that same date. On

December 9, 2019, defendant was sentenced by the trial court to life imprisonment

at hard labor, without the benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence,

for his conviction for second degree murder. The trial court also sentenced

defendant to thirty years at hard labor for his conspiracy to commit second degree

murder conviction. Finally, as to defendant’s conviction for conspiracy to

distribute heroin, the trial court imposed a sentence of twenty years at hard labor.

All sentences were to run concurrently and with credit for time served. This appeal

followed.

ERRORS PATENT

Non-unanimous jury convictions have been deemed errors patent under

Louisiana law pursuant to Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U.S. ____, 140 S.Ct. 1390, 206

L.Ed.2d 583 (2020). See, e.g., State v. Monroe, 2020-00335 (La. 6/3/20), 296

So.3d 1062. Defendant raises the non-unanimous jury verdicts in his assignments

of error. Thus, we will address this error patent below.

DISCUSSION

Defendant assigns three errors on appeal, all concerning the non-unanimous

jury verdicts. Defendant avers that the trial court erred in denying his motion for

new trial based on the non-unanimous verdicts; that the trial court erred in

sentencing him based upon the non-unanimous verdicts in violation of the Sixth

and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution; and that the trial

court erred in instructing the jury of its ability to convict him in a ten to two

2 verdict. Defendant argues that the lack of a unanimous verdict relating to his

felony convictions violates his constitutional rights. This argument has merit.

In Ramos, the United States Supreme Court held that jury verdicts in state

felony trials must be unanimous. Ramos, 590 U.S. at ____, 140 S.Ct. at 1397, 206

L.Ed.2d 583 (2020); see also State v. Myles, 2019-0965 (La.App. 4 Cir. 4/29/20),

299 So.3d 643. Further, in Schriro v. Summerlin, 542 U.S. 348, 351, 124 S.Ct.

2519, 2522, 159 L.Ed.2d 442 (2004), the Court observed that “[w]hen a decision of

[the United States Supreme Court] results in a ‘new rule,’ that rule applies to all

criminal cases still pending on direct review.” As defendant’s case is pending on

direct review, the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Ramos applies.

DECREE

For the foregoing reasons, defendant’s convictions and sentences are vacated

and the case is remanded to the district court.

VACATED AND REMANDED