STATE OF LOUISIANA * NO. 2023-KA-0576
VERSUS * COURT OF APPEAL TYRANCE CHANCELLOR * FOURTH CIRCUIT * STATE OF LOUISIANA *******
APPEAL FROM CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT ORLEANS PARISH NO. 531-116, SECTION “I” Honorable Raymond C. Bigelow, Judge ****** Judge Rachael D. Johnson ****** (Court composed of Judge Sandra Cabrina Jenkins, Judge Dale N. Atkins, Judge Rachael D. Johnson)
Christopher A. Aberle LOUISIANA APPELLATE PROJECT P.O. Box 8583 Mandeville, LA 70470-8583
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT
Jason Rogers Williams DISTRICT ATTORNEY ORLEANS PARISH 619 S. White Street New Orleans, LA 70119
Brad Scott Chief of Appeals Orleans Parish Assistant District Attorney 619 S. White Street New Orleans, LA 70119
Thomas Frederick ORLEANS PARISH DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE 619 South White Street New Orleans, LA 70119-5045 COUNSEL FOR STATE/APPELLEE
VACATED AND REMANDED February 26, 2024 RDJ Appellant Tyrance Chancellor (“Defendant”) appeals his conviction of SCJ felony manslaughter and eighty-year sentence. Defendant argues that this Court DNA must vacate his conviction and remand the matter for a new trial because the
eleven-to-one jury verdict was unconstitutional. For the following reasons, we
vacate the district court’s conviction and remand the matter for further
proceedings.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On July 20, 2016, Defendant and J.T.1 contacted their girlfriends Starkesha
Lee (“Ms. Lee”) and Asia Thomas (“Ms. Thomas”) to meet later that night. Ms.
Lee and Ms. Thomas told Defendant and J.T. that they would contact them when
they arrived back to Ms. Lee’s home in New Orleans. Ms. Lee and Ms. Thomas
never contacted Defendant and J.T. about returning to their home. Around one or
two a.m., Defendant and J.T. arrived at Ms. Lee’s house. Defendant and J.T.
knocked on the door and began to throw small pebbles at the upstairs window in an
attempt to get their attention. When Defendant and J.T. did not receive a response,
1 Pursuant to the requirements of confidentiality of juvenile proceedings as set forth in La. Ch.C.
art. 412, the juvenile, who was fifteen at the time of the charged offenses, is referred to by his initials only, J.T.
1 they forced their way into the apartment by pushing open the front door. J.T.
carried a gun and Defendant carried a stick when they entered Ms. Lee’s home.
Once Defendant and J.T. reached the top of the stairs, a man named Hasahn
Shawl (“Mr. Shawl”), appeared from Ms. Lee’s bedroom and confronted them. Mr.
Shawl was carrying a gun when he confronted Defendant and J.T. A scuffle ensued
between all three men which involved a struggle for possession of one of the guns.
Eventually, a gun discharged and killed Mr. Shawl. Defendant proceeded to ask
J.T. “why he shot him” and later told Ms. Lee that J.T. “didn’t have to shoot the
man.” After hearing the gunshot, Ms. Lee fled outside and called the police. Prior
to the police’s arrival, Ms. Lee re-entered her home and found Mr. Shawl’s body
“at the bottom of the stairs.” After the shooting but before the police arrived,
Defendant possessed a gun. Soon thereafter, Defendant walked away and when he
returned he no longer had a gun.
When New Orleans Police Detective Tindell Murdock (“Det. Murdock”)
arrived at the scene of the crime, he observed that the front door of the residence
was “kicked in” and Mr. Shawl was deceased. Det. Murdock proceeded to take
statements from Ms. Lee, Ms. Thomas, and Defendant.2 After reviewing the
statements and the physical evidence present, Det. Murdock secured arrest
warrants for Defendant and J.T.
The State ultimately tried Defendant on two charges: Second Degree Murder
pursuant to La. R.S. 14:30.1 and Obstruction of Justice pursuant to La. R.S.
14:130.1. On January 30, 2019, the jury returned an eleven-to-one guilty verdict of
manslaughter on the second degree murder charge and a not guilty verdict on the
2 A statement was not taken from J.T. because he was a juvenile.
2 obstruction of justice charge. On May 23, 2019, the district court determined that
the defendant was a second felony offender in light of a 2012 possession of
cocaine conviction. This resulted in the Defendant receiving a sentence of “eighty
years in the custody of the Department of Corrections without the benefit of
probation or suspension of sentence.” On March 31, 2021, Defendant filed a pro se
post-conviction application (“PCA”) seeking an out-of-time appeal. Defendant told
his counsel of his desire to appeal but his counsel abandoned him following his
sentencing. His counsel did not move for appeal nor did counsel appoint Defendant
appellate counsel. Pro bono counsel subsequently enrolled on behalf of Defendant
and they filed a supplemental PCA. On March 28, 2023, the district court granted
Defendant’s PCA, his motion for appeal, and the appointment of appellate counsel.
On appeal, Defendant raised one assignment of error. Defendant argues that
the non-unanimous jury verdict convicting him of manslaughter violated his
constitutional due process rights under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments of
the constitution.
JURISDICTION
The State does not contest the validity of Defendant’s argument, but instead
argues that this Court does not have appellate jurisdiction. The State argues that the
out-of-time appeal was improperly granted because its initially filed procedural
objections were never adjudicated. “If procedural objections are timely filed, no
answer on the merits of the claim may be ordered until such objections have been
considered and rulings thereon have become final.” La. C.Cr.P. art. 927(A). In
State v. Puderer, the Louisiana Supreme Court vacated the appellate jurisdiction of
this Court because the trial court improperly granted an out-of-time appeal when
3 the State initially filed procedural objections that were never adjudicated. 22-0623,
p. 25 (La. App. 4 Cir. 3/10/23); 359 So.3d 551, writ granted, decision vacated, 23-
00624 (La. 11/8/23), and writ granted, decision vacated, 23-00494 (La. 11/8/23).
The Supreme Court cited Judge Lobrano’s dissent as the reason for vacating the
out-of-time appeal. Judge Lobrano argued that unless La. C.Cr.P. arts. 930.4(G)3
and 930.8(D)4 waivers were effected, then the out-of-time appeal is improperly
granted because the State’s procedural objections were never adjudicated.
Purderer, 22-0623, p. 25, 359 So.3d at 570 (Lobrano, J. dissenting).
In the interest of justice and judicial economy, the State filed the waiver
necessary to effectuate the waiver provisions La. C.Cr.P. arts. 930.4(G) and
930.8(D) to the district court on November 21, 2023. This Court shall deem these
waivers effective in order to support appellate jurisdiction in this case.
DISCUSSION
Defendant argues that his conviction must be vacated because the jury’s
non-unanimous guilty verdict of manslaughter violated his constitutional due
process rights under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States
Constitution. On April 20, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court in Ramos v. Louisiana
held that the right to jury trial pursuant to the Sixth Amendment, as incorporated
against the States under the Fourteenth Amendment, requires a unanimous verdict
to convict a defendant of a serious offense. Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U.S. ___, ___,
3 “Notwithstanding any provision of this Title to the contrary, the state may affirmatively waive
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
STATE OF LOUISIANA * NO. 2023-KA-0576
VERSUS * COURT OF APPEAL TYRANCE CHANCELLOR * FOURTH CIRCUIT * STATE OF LOUISIANA *******
APPEAL FROM CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT ORLEANS PARISH NO. 531-116, SECTION “I” Honorable Raymond C. Bigelow, Judge ****** Judge Rachael D. Johnson ****** (Court composed of Judge Sandra Cabrina Jenkins, Judge Dale N. Atkins, Judge Rachael D. Johnson)
Christopher A. Aberle LOUISIANA APPELLATE PROJECT P.O. Box 8583 Mandeville, LA 70470-8583
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT
Jason Rogers Williams DISTRICT ATTORNEY ORLEANS PARISH 619 S. White Street New Orleans, LA 70119
Brad Scott Chief of Appeals Orleans Parish Assistant District Attorney 619 S. White Street New Orleans, LA 70119
Thomas Frederick ORLEANS PARISH DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE 619 South White Street New Orleans, LA 70119-5045 COUNSEL FOR STATE/APPELLEE
VACATED AND REMANDED February 26, 2024 RDJ Appellant Tyrance Chancellor (“Defendant”) appeals his conviction of SCJ felony manslaughter and eighty-year sentence. Defendant argues that this Court DNA must vacate his conviction and remand the matter for a new trial because the
eleven-to-one jury verdict was unconstitutional. For the following reasons, we
vacate the district court’s conviction and remand the matter for further
proceedings.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On July 20, 2016, Defendant and J.T.1 contacted their girlfriends Starkesha
Lee (“Ms. Lee”) and Asia Thomas (“Ms. Thomas”) to meet later that night. Ms.
Lee and Ms. Thomas told Defendant and J.T. that they would contact them when
they arrived back to Ms. Lee’s home in New Orleans. Ms. Lee and Ms. Thomas
never contacted Defendant and J.T. about returning to their home. Around one or
two a.m., Defendant and J.T. arrived at Ms. Lee’s house. Defendant and J.T.
knocked on the door and began to throw small pebbles at the upstairs window in an
attempt to get their attention. When Defendant and J.T. did not receive a response,
1 Pursuant to the requirements of confidentiality of juvenile proceedings as set forth in La. Ch.C.
art. 412, the juvenile, who was fifteen at the time of the charged offenses, is referred to by his initials only, J.T.
1 they forced their way into the apartment by pushing open the front door. J.T.
carried a gun and Defendant carried a stick when they entered Ms. Lee’s home.
Once Defendant and J.T. reached the top of the stairs, a man named Hasahn
Shawl (“Mr. Shawl”), appeared from Ms. Lee’s bedroom and confronted them. Mr.
Shawl was carrying a gun when he confronted Defendant and J.T. A scuffle ensued
between all three men which involved a struggle for possession of one of the guns.
Eventually, a gun discharged and killed Mr. Shawl. Defendant proceeded to ask
J.T. “why he shot him” and later told Ms. Lee that J.T. “didn’t have to shoot the
man.” After hearing the gunshot, Ms. Lee fled outside and called the police. Prior
to the police’s arrival, Ms. Lee re-entered her home and found Mr. Shawl’s body
“at the bottom of the stairs.” After the shooting but before the police arrived,
Defendant possessed a gun. Soon thereafter, Defendant walked away and when he
returned he no longer had a gun.
When New Orleans Police Detective Tindell Murdock (“Det. Murdock”)
arrived at the scene of the crime, he observed that the front door of the residence
was “kicked in” and Mr. Shawl was deceased. Det. Murdock proceeded to take
statements from Ms. Lee, Ms. Thomas, and Defendant.2 After reviewing the
statements and the physical evidence present, Det. Murdock secured arrest
warrants for Defendant and J.T.
The State ultimately tried Defendant on two charges: Second Degree Murder
pursuant to La. R.S. 14:30.1 and Obstruction of Justice pursuant to La. R.S.
14:130.1. On January 30, 2019, the jury returned an eleven-to-one guilty verdict of
manslaughter on the second degree murder charge and a not guilty verdict on the
2 A statement was not taken from J.T. because he was a juvenile.
2 obstruction of justice charge. On May 23, 2019, the district court determined that
the defendant was a second felony offender in light of a 2012 possession of
cocaine conviction. This resulted in the Defendant receiving a sentence of “eighty
years in the custody of the Department of Corrections without the benefit of
probation or suspension of sentence.” On March 31, 2021, Defendant filed a pro se
post-conviction application (“PCA”) seeking an out-of-time appeal. Defendant told
his counsel of his desire to appeal but his counsel abandoned him following his
sentencing. His counsel did not move for appeal nor did counsel appoint Defendant
appellate counsel. Pro bono counsel subsequently enrolled on behalf of Defendant
and they filed a supplemental PCA. On March 28, 2023, the district court granted
Defendant’s PCA, his motion for appeal, and the appointment of appellate counsel.
On appeal, Defendant raised one assignment of error. Defendant argues that
the non-unanimous jury verdict convicting him of manslaughter violated his
constitutional due process rights under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments of
the constitution.
JURISDICTION
The State does not contest the validity of Defendant’s argument, but instead
argues that this Court does not have appellate jurisdiction. The State argues that the
out-of-time appeal was improperly granted because its initially filed procedural
objections were never adjudicated. “If procedural objections are timely filed, no
answer on the merits of the claim may be ordered until such objections have been
considered and rulings thereon have become final.” La. C.Cr.P. art. 927(A). In
State v. Puderer, the Louisiana Supreme Court vacated the appellate jurisdiction of
this Court because the trial court improperly granted an out-of-time appeal when
3 the State initially filed procedural objections that were never adjudicated. 22-0623,
p. 25 (La. App. 4 Cir. 3/10/23); 359 So.3d 551, writ granted, decision vacated, 23-
00624 (La. 11/8/23), and writ granted, decision vacated, 23-00494 (La. 11/8/23).
The Supreme Court cited Judge Lobrano’s dissent as the reason for vacating the
out-of-time appeal. Judge Lobrano argued that unless La. C.Cr.P. arts. 930.4(G)3
and 930.8(D)4 waivers were effected, then the out-of-time appeal is improperly
granted because the State’s procedural objections were never adjudicated.
Purderer, 22-0623, p. 25, 359 So.3d at 570 (Lobrano, J. dissenting).
In the interest of justice and judicial economy, the State filed the waiver
necessary to effectuate the waiver provisions La. C.Cr.P. arts. 930.4(G) and
930.8(D) to the district court on November 21, 2023. This Court shall deem these
waivers effective in order to support appellate jurisdiction in this case.
DISCUSSION
Defendant argues that his conviction must be vacated because the jury’s
non-unanimous guilty verdict of manslaughter violated his constitutional due
process rights under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States
Constitution. On April 20, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court in Ramos v. Louisiana
held that the right to jury trial pursuant to the Sixth Amendment, as incorporated
against the States under the Fourteenth Amendment, requires a unanimous verdict
to convict a defendant of a serious offense. Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U.S. ___, ___,
3 “Notwithstanding any provision of this Title to the contrary, the state may affirmatively waive
any procedural objection pursuant to this Article. Such waiver shall be express and in writing and filed by the state into the district court record.” La. C.Cr.P. art. 930.4(G). 4 “Notwithstanding any provision of this Title to the contrary, the state may affirmatively waive
any objection to the timeliness under Paragraph A of this Article of the application for post conviction relief filed by the petitioner. Such waiver shall be express and in writing and filed by the state into the district court record.” La. C.Cr.P. art. 930.8(D).
4 140 S. Ct. 1390, 1394-97, 206 L. Ed. 2d 583 (2020). “[I]f the Sixth Amendment’s
right to a jury trial requires a unanimous verdict to support a conviction in federal
court, it requires no less in state court.” Id. at 1397. Any persons whose conviction
were pending on direct appeal or not yet final when Ramos was decided, will have
the holding of Ramos applied. State v. Curry, 19-01723 (La. 6/3/20), 296 So.3d
1030 (per curiam) (citing Griffith v. Kentucky, 479 U.S. 314, 328 (1987)). Under
Louisiana law, a defendant’s challenge to his non-unanimous conviction pursuant
to Ramos is deemed an error patent. State v. Monroe, 20-00335 (La. 6/3/20), 296
So.3d 1062. Defendant’s conviction was still on direct appeal when Ramos was
decided. His verdict was a non-unanimous guilty verdict of manslaughter, which
violates the Ramos unanimous verdict requirement to convict a defendant of a
serious offense. Ramos, 140 S. Ct. at 1394-97. Accordingly, Defendant’s
manslaughter conviction and eighty-year sentence is vacated.
DECREE
For the foregoing reasons, we vacate the Defendant’s convictions and the
matter is to be remanded for a new trial.
VACATED AND REMANDED