State Of Louisiana v. Raymond S. Spitz

• Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
• Decided: December 21, 2020
• Docket: 2020KW0916
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

STATE OF LOUISIANA NO. 2020 KW 0916

VERSUS

RAYMOND S. SPITZ DECEIVER 21, 2020

In Re: Raymond S. Spitz, applying for supervisory writs, 22nd Judicial District Court, Parish of St. Tammany, No. 200821.

BEFORE: WHIPPLE, C. J., WELCH AND CHUTZ, JJ.

WRIT DENIED. In Ramos v. Louisiana, _ U. S._, , 140 S. Ct. 1390, 1397, 206 L. Ed. 2d 583 ( 2020), the United States Supreme Court held, " the Sixth Amendment' s unanimity requirement applies to state and federal criminal trials equally." However, the Court declined to address its whether holding applied

retroactively to cases on collateral review. The Court specifically observed that the question of "[ wjhether the right to jury unanimity applies to cases on collateral review is a

question for a future case where the parties will have a chance to brief the issue and we will benefit from their adversarial presentation." See Ramos, U. S. at , 140 S. Ct. at 1407. The question of whether Ramos must apply retroactively to cases on federal collateral review is before the currently pending Court. Edwards U. S. 140 v. Vannoy, — S. Ct. 2737, 206 L. Ed. 2d 917 ( 2020). Moreover, the Louisiana Supreme Court has declined to definitively rule on whether Ramos should on apply collateral review in state court proceedings decision pending a in Edwards. See State v. Gipson, 2019- 01815 ( La. 6/ 3/ 20), 296 So. 3d 1051, 1052 ( Johnson, C. J., dissenting to point out that

she disagreed with the majority' s decision to defer ruling until the United States Supreme Court mandates action). Therefore, we are to constrained deny relief at this time. However, our

decision does not preclude from issue relator reurging the in the district court if decision warranted by the of the higher court( s).

VGW JEW

WRC

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

DFPUT zuk C ER OF COURT FOR THE COURT