State of Louisiana v. Troy Rhodes

• Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
• Decided: October 6, 2021
• Docket: 2021-KA-0439
• Status: Published

Opinion

STATE OF LOUISIANA * NO. 2021-KA-0439

VERSUS * COURT OF APPEAL TROY RHODES * FOURTH CIRCUIT * STATE OF LOUISIANA *******

APPEAL FROM CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT ORLEANS PARISH NO. 432-709, SECTION “DIVISION G” Judge Nandi Campbell, ****** Judge Terri F. Love ****** (Court composed of Judge Terri F. Love)

Jason Rogers Williams DISTRICT ATTORNEY ORLEANS PARISH 619 S. White Street New Orleans, LA 70119

G. Benjamin Cohen Chief of Appeals, DISTRICT ATTORNEY 619 S. White Street New Orleans, LA 70119

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT

Pamela Metzger P. O. Box 750116 Dallas, TX 75275

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE

DISMISSAL GRANTED OCTOBER 6, 2021 TFL In 2004, the Appellee, Troy Rhodes, was convicted of armed robbery and

attempted second-degree murder. Over the next six years, the Appellee retained

post-conviction counsel and unsuccessfully filed three applications for post-

conviction relief. Seven years after the conviction, the Appellee filed a successful

federal habeas corpus petition raising claims of prosecutorial misconduct and

ineffective assistance of counsel. The federal court vacated the conviction and the

case was remanded to the trial court for re-trial. The Appellee subsequently filed a

Motion to Quash the indictment against him and dismiss all charges, with

prejudice. The district court granted the Motion to Quash and the Appellant, the

State of Louisiana, appealed the district court’s decision. At present, the Appellant

seeks to dismiss its appeal of the district court’s decision granting the Appellee’s

Motion to Quash. We now grant the Appellant’s Motion to Dismiss.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

In June 2004, the Appellee, Troy Rhodes, was convicted of the June 2002

armed robbery and attempted second-degree murder of a commercial delivery

truck driver for Leidenheimer Bakery. During trial, the prosecution had relied on

the victim’s identification of Mr. Rhodes as the perpetrator. The identification

1 occurred in the victim’s hospital room, six days after being shot during the

robbery. The victim had received pain medication from the hospital that day. That

fact was documented in the victim’s medical records, which Mr. Rhodes’s state-

funded trial counsel possessed. However, during the victim’s testimony, he

claimed that he was not medicated at the time of the identification. Mr. Rhodes’s

trial counsel declined to impeach the victim’s statement, to the detriment of Mr.

Rhodes. Over the next six years, Mr. Rhodes retained post-conviction counsel and

unsuccessfully filed separate three applications for post-conviction relief.

In 2011, Mr. Rhodes filed a federal habeas corpus petition raising claims of

prosecutorial misconduct and ineffective assistance of counsel. The ineffective

assistance of counsel claim related to the trial attorney declining to impeach the

victim’s identification of Mr. Rhodes with available medical records. The claim

also related to the post-conviction counsel’s failure to raise the trial attorney’s

default and, furthermore, filing an application without seeking a complete file of

the case.

The federal court found that Mr. Rhodes established that his trial counsel

and post-conviction counsel were constitutionally ineffective, excusing the

procedural default of his ineffective assistance of counsel claim. Rhodes v.

Vannoy, 751 F. App'x 524, 532 (5th Cir. 2018). The conviction was vacated and

the matter was remanded to the state trial court for re-trial. On December 16,

2019, Mr. Rhodes filed a Motion to Quash the indictment against him and dismiss

all charges, with prejudice. On November 16, 2020, the district court held a

hearing on the motion and granted the Motion to Quash. The State of Louisiana

appealed the district court’s decision. On September 29, 2021, the Appellant filed

2 a Motion to Dismiss its own appeal of the district court’s decision granting the

Appellee’s Motion to Quash.1

DISCUSSION

In the Appellee’s Motion to Quash the indictment against him and dismiss

all charges, with prejudice, he argued that a re-trial of this case would violate his

right to due process and speedy trial. He noted the length of delay from the

original action in 2004, errors by state-funded counsel, loss of physical evidence,

and the inability to locate contemporaneous witnesses. In its appeal of the district

court’s decision, the Appellant argued that the delay in proceedings against the

Appellee was not fully attributable to the State for speedy trial purposes.

The Appellant, without conceding the merits of the Appellee’s legal

arguments, now seeks to dismiss its appeal of the trial court’s decision granting the

Appellee’s Motion to Quash. The Appellant states that in reviewing the Appellee’s

brief and the record, it is apparent that retrial is impossible. The Appellant further

states that its own inability to re-prosecute this case in a meaningful way

necessitates dismissal in order to respect the Court’s time and resources. Lastly,

the Appellant has represented to the Court that the State has communicated with

the victim, who is aware of the State’s decision and the rationale for such a

decision, and that the victim does not object to this proposed resolution.

CONCLUSION

Therefore, considering the Motion to Dismiss filed by the Appellant, we

grant the motion and dismiss the appeal.

DISMISSAL GRANTED

1 The Appellant’s Motion to Dismiss was timely filed and unopposed.