State of Louisiana Versus Bobby L. James
This text of State of Louisiana Versus Bobby L. James (State of Louisiana Versus Bobby L. James) 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. 20-KA-366
VERSUS FIFTH CIRCUIT
BOBBY L. JAMES COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF LOUISIANA
ON APPEAL FROM THE TWENTY-FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF LOUISIANA NO. 16-4005, DIVISION "N" HONORABLE STEPHEN D. ENRIGHT, JR., JUDGE PRESIDING
January 27, 2021
STEPHEN J. WINDHORST JUDGE
Panel composed of Judges Jude G. Gravois, Stephen J. Windhorst, and Hans J. Liljeberg
CONVICTIONS AND SENTENCES VACATED; REMANDED SJW JGG HJL COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE, STATE OF LOUISIANA Honorable Paul D. Connick, Jr. Thomas J. Butler Anne M. Wallis Douglas W. Freese Brittany Beckner
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT, BOBBY L. JAMES Kevin V. Boshea WINDHORST, J.
Defendant, Bobby L. James, appeals his convictions and sentences. For the
reasons stated herein, we vacate defendant’s convictions and sentences and remand
the case to the trial court for further proceedings.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On August 18, 2016, a Jefferson Parish Grand Jury returned a true bill
indicting defendant with the second degree murder and attempted armed robbery of
Dwayne Baptiste, violations of La. R.S. 14:30.1 (count one) and La. R.S. 14:27 and
La. R.S. 14:64 (count two). Defendant pled not guilty at his arraignment on October
13, 2016.
On February 23, 2017, defendant’s motions to suppress identification and
statement were denied by the trial court. On September 21, 2017, a hearing was held
on the State’s notice to introduce other crimes evidence pursuant to La. C.E. art.
404B relating to a December 10, 2012 incident in which defendant allegedly
attempted to commit an armed robbery and burglary, and in the course of doing so,
committed a second degree murder. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court
granted the State’s 404 B motion.
Trial commenced before a twelve-person jury on October 10, 2017. On
October 12, 2017, the jury found defendant guilty as charged in ten to two verdicts
on both counts.
On October 27, 2017, defendant filed a pro se motion for post-verdict
judgment of acquittal and/or arrest of judgment, which was not ruled upon by the
trial court. On November 2, 2017, the trial court sentenced defendant on count one
to life imprisonment and on count two to forty-nine and one-half years imprisonment
at hard labor. Both sentences were ordered to be served concurrently with each other
and without the benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence. The same
day, defendant filed a motion for appeal, which the trial court granted. On November
20-KA-366 1 28, 2018, this Court vacated defendant’s sentences for second degree murder and
attempted armed robbery and the matter was remanded to the trial court to rule on
defendant’s pro se motion for post-verdict judgment of acquittal.
On January 10, 2019, the trial court denied defendant’s pro se motion for post-
verdict judgment of acquittal. The same day, the trial court sentenced defendant on
count one to life imprisonment and on count two to forty-nine and one-half years
imprisonment at hard labor, with the sentences to be served concurrently with each
other and without the benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence. On
August 6, 2020, defendant filed an application for post-conviction relief requesting
an out-of-time appeal, which the trial court granted. This appeal followed.
DISCUSSION
In his first assignment of error, defendant contends that the non-unanimous
verdicts are in violation of the holding in Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U.S. —, 140 S.Ct.
1390, 206 L.Ed.2d 583 (2020).
Defendant was charged with second degree murder and attempted armed
robbery. Since the punishment for these offenses is 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. 14:30.1; La. R.S. 14:27; La. R.S. 14:64. Non-unanimous verdicts
were previously allowed under La. Const. Art. I, §17 and La. C.Cr.P. art. 782, and
the circumstances of this case. The constitutionality of the statutes was previously
addressed by many courts, all of which rejected the argument. See Apodaca v.
Oregon, 406 U.S. 404, 92 S.Ct. 1628, 32 L.Ed.2d 184 (1972); State v. Bertrand, 08-
2215, 08-2311 (La. 03/17/09), 6 So.3d 738, 742-43; State v. Brooks, 12-226 (La.
App. 5 Cir. 10/30/12), 103 So.3d 608, 613-14, writ denied, 12-2478 (La. 04/19/13),
111 So.3d 1030.
However, recently the United States Supreme Court in Ramos, supra, found
that the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial, as incorporated against the States by
20-KA-366 2 the Fourteenth Amendment, requires a unanimous verdict to convict a defendant of
a serious offense.1 Id. at 1397.
Based on Ramos, and that this case is on direct appeal,2 we find that since the
jury’s verdict was not unanimous for these serious offenses as required by Ramos,
defendant’s convictions and sentences are vacated and the matter is remanded to the
trial court for further proceedings.
Lastly, our review of the record under State v. Raymo, 419 So.2d 858, 861
(La. 1982), reflects that defendant is not entitled to an acquittal under the standards
of Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); Hudson
v. Louisiana, 450 U.S. 40, 101 S.Ct. 970, 67 L.Ed.2d 30 (1981); and State v. Hearold,
603 So.2d 731, 734 (La. 1992).
Because we are vacating defendant’s convictions and sentences based on Ramos,
we pretermit defendant’s remaining assignments of error.
DECREE
For the reasons stated above, defendant’s convictions and sentences are
vacated and this case is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.
CONVICTIONS AND SENTENCES VACATED; REMANDED
1 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. The Sixth Amendment’s right to a jury trial only attaches to serious offenses. 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, 2013 WL 486691 (E.D. La. 2013).
2 See Schriro v. Summerlin, 542 U.S. 348, 351, 124 S.Ct. 2519, 2522, 159 L.Ed.2d 442 (2004), observing 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,” citing Griffith v. Kentucky, 479 U.S. 314, 328, 107 S.Ct. 708, 93 L.Ed.2d 649 (1987) (“a new rule for the conduct of criminal prosecutions is to be applied retroactively to all cases, state or federal, pending on direct review or not yet final, with no exception for cases in which the new rule constitutes a ‘clear break’ with the past.”).
20-KA-366 3 SUSAN M. CHEHARDY CURTIS B. PURSELL
CHIEF JUDGE CLERK OF COURT
NANCY F. VEGA 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.
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 Bobby L. James, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-of-louisiana-versus-bobby-l-james-lactapp-2021.