State of Louisiana Versus Argentina Mesa
This text of State of Louisiana Versus Argentina Mesa (State of Louisiana Versus Argentina Mesa) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Louisiana Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
STATE OF LOUISIANA NO. 18-KA-526
VERSUS FIFTH CIRCUIT
ARGENTINA MESA COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF LOUISIANA
ON REMAND FROM THE LOUISIANA SUPREME COURT AN APPEAL FROM THE TWENTY-FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF LOUISIANA NO. 15-4323, DIVISION "J" HONORABLE STEPHEN C. GREFER, JUDGE PRESIDING
September 09, 2020
MARC E. JOHNSON JUDGE
Panel composed of Judges Jude G. Gravois, Marc E. Johnson, and Hans J. Liljeberg
CONVICTIONS AND SENTENCES AFFIRMED MEJ JGG HJL COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE, STATE OF LOUISIANA Paul D. Connick, Jr. Terry M. Boudreaux Anne M. Wallis Laura S. Schneidau Emily E. Booth
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT, ARGENTINA MESA Sherry A. Watters
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE, STATE OF LOUISIANA, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Jeffrey M. Landry Colin Clark J. Taylor Gray JOHNSON, J.
ON REMAND FROM THE LOUISIANA SUPREME COURT
This matter comes before this Court pursuant to an order of remand from the
Louisiana Supreme Court. See, State v. Mesa, 19-1908 (La. 6/3/20); 296 So.3d
1044. In its order, the supreme court instructed this Court to conduct a new errors
patent review in light of the United States Supreme Court’s ruling in Ramos v.
Louisiana, --- U.S. ---, 140 S.Ct. 1390, 206 L.Ed.2d 583 (2020). For the following
reasons, we affirm Defendant’s convictions and sentences.
As noted in this Court’s previous opinion, Defendant was charged with
forcible rape of a juvenile1 (D.O.B. 8/29/2000) in violation of La. R.S. 14:42.1
(count one), sexual battery of a juvenile (D.O.B. 8/29/2000) in violation of La.
R.S. 14:43.1 (count two), and sexual battery of a juvenile under 13 years of age
(D.O.B. 5/27/2005) in violation of La. R.S. 14:43.1 (count three). State v. Mesa,
18-526 (La. App. 5 Cir. 11/27/19); 287 So.3d 89, 95, writ granted and remanded,
19-1908 (La. 6/3/20); 296 So.3d 1044. At the conclusion of the trial on March 20,
2018, the jury returned a verdict of not guilty on count one and guilty as charged
on counts two and three. Id. at 100. The trial court sentenced Defendant on count
two (sexual battery of a juvenile) to ten years imprisonment without the benefit of
parole, probation, or suspension of sentence, and 25 years in the Department of
Corrections2 without the benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence on
count three (sexual battery of a juvenile under 13 years of age). Id. at 101. The
1 In the interest of protecting minor victims and victims of sexual offenses as set forth in La. R.S. 46:1844(W)(3), the judges of this Court have adopted a policy that this Court’s published work will use only initials to identify the victim and any defendant or witness whose name can lead to the victim’s identity (i.e., parent, sibling, or relative with the same last name as the victim). State v. Ross, 14-84 (La. App. 5 Cir. 10/15/14); 182 So.3d 983, 985 n.3. 2 Although the trial court did not state that Defendant’s sentence on count three was to be served at hard labor, “a sentence committing a prisoner to the Department of Corrections is necessarily at hard labor.” State v. Lawson, 04-334 (La. App. 5 Cir. 9/28/04); 885 So.2d 618 (citing State v. Lisenby, 534 So.2d 996, 998 (La. App. 3d Cir.1988)).
18-KA-526 1 trial court further ordered the sentences imposed on counts two and three to be
served consecutively to one another. Id.
On appeal, Defendant challenged her convictions by a non-unanimous jury
as one of her assigned errors. This Court found that Defendant did not properly
preserve the issue for appeal. State v. Mesa, 287 So.3d at 112. At the time of
Defendant’s convictions, non-unanimous jury verdicts were permissible under La.
Const. Art. I, § 17, La. C.Cr.P. art 782, and the applicable jurisprudence. This
Court affirmed Defendant’s convictions and sentences. Id. at 118.
Thereafter, on April 20, 2020, the United States Supreme Court handed
down its decision in Ramos v. Louisiana, supra, where the United States Supreme
Court found that the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial—as incorporated
against the states by the Fourteenth Amendment—requires a unanimous verdict to
convict a defendant of a serious offense.3 It held, “Wherever we might look to
determine what the term ‘trial by an impartial jury trial’ meant at the time of the
Sixth Amendment’s adoption—whether it’s the common law, state practices in the
founding era, or opinions and treatises written soon afterward—the answer is
unmistakable. A jury must reach a unanimous verdict in order to convict.” Id. at
1395. The Court concluded, “There can be no question either that the Sixth
Amendment’s unanimity requirement applies to state and federal trials
equally…So if 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. According to Ramos, Louisiana will have to retry defendants who
were convicted of serious offenses by non-unanimous juries, and whose cases are
still pending on direct appeal.
3 For purposes of the Sixth Amendment, federal law defines petty offenses as offenses subject to imprisonment of six months or less and serious offenses as offenses subject to imprisonment over six months. See generally, Lewis v. United States, 518 U.S. 322, 327-28, 116 S.Ct. 2163, 135 L.Ed.2d 590 (1996); Hill v. Louisiana, 2013WL486691 (E.D. La. 2013).
18-KA-526 2 Following the Ramos decision, the Louisiana Supreme Court granted
Defendant’s writ application that challenged his convictions and sentences and
remanded the matter to this Court to conduct a new errors patent review in light of
Ramos. See, State v. Mesa, 296 So.3d at 1044. Upon remand, the State filed a
motion to supplement the record with the jury polling slips, asserting that each of
the sexual battery convictions were rendered by unanimous juries. The State’s
motion was granted, and the Clerk of Court for the 24th Judicial District Court was
ordered to supplement the record with the jury polling slips. The polling slips
reflected that the verdicts were unanimous for counts two and three.
Defendant was convicted of sexual battery of a juvenile (count two), and
sexual battery of a juvenile under 13 years of age (count three). Since the
punishments for these offenses are all necessarily confinement at hard labor, a jury
of twelve persons was required. See La. Const. Art. I, § 17; La. C.Cr.P. art. 782;
La. R.S. 14:42.1; La. R.S. 14:43.1. Because the jury verdicts for counts three and
four were unanimous, we find that there is no error that requires corrective action,
pursuant to Ramos, and Defendant is not entitled to relief. We, therefore, will not
disturb our original opinion.
DECREE
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm Defendant’s convictions and sentences.
CONVICTIONS AND SENTENCES AFFIRMED
18-KA-526 3 SUSAN M. CHEHARDY CURTIS B. PURSELL
CHIEF JUDGE CLERK OF COURT
MARY E. LEGNON FREDERICKA H. WICKER CHIEF DEPUTY CLERK JUDE G. GRAVOIS MARC E. JOHNSON ROBERT A. CHAISSON SUSAN BUCHHOLZ STEPHEN J. WINDHORST FIRST DEPUTY CLERK HANS J. LILJEBERG JOHN J. MOLAISON, JR. FIFTH CIRCUIT MELISSA C. LEDET JUDGES 101 DERBIGNY STREET (70053) DIRECTOR OF CENTRAL STAFF POST OFFICE BOX 489 GRETNA, LOUISIANA 70054 (504) 376-1400
(504) 376-1498 FAX www.fifthcircuit.org
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
State of Louisiana Versus Argentina Mesa, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-of-louisiana-versus-argentina-mesa-lactapp-2020.