State of Louisiana Versus C. T.

Opinion

STATE OF LOUISIANA NO. 18-KA-650

VERSUS FIFTH CIRCUIT

C. T. 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. 15-5781, DIVISION "B"

HONORABLE CORNELIUS E. REGAN, JUDGE PRESIDING

July 15, 2020

HANS J. LILJEBERG

JUDGE

Panel composed of Judges Stephen J. Windhorst, Hans J. Liljeberg, and Timothy S. Marcel, Pro Tempore

CONVICTION AND SENTENCE VACATED; REMANDED HJL SJW TSM

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE, STATE OF LOUISIANA Honorable Paul D. Connick, Jr. Terry M. Boudreaux Juliet L. Clark

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT, C. T.

Martin E. Regan, Jr.

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE, STATE OF LOUISIANA, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Jeffrey M. Landry Colin Clark J. Taylor Gray

LILJEBERG, 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. C.T., 19-1390 (La. 6/3/20), --- So.3d ---,

2020 WL 3424319 (per curiam). In its order, the Louisiana Supreme Court

instructed this Court to conduct a new error patent review in light of the United

States Supreme Court’s ruling in Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U.S. ---, 140 S.Ct. 1390,

-- L.Ed.2d -- (2020). For the following reasons, after review, we find that

defendant is entitled to a new trial. Accordingly, we vacate defendant’s conviction

and sentence and remand to the trial court for further proceedings.

LAW AND DISCUSSION

Defendant, C.T., was charged with aggravated rape of a known juvenile,

where the victim was under the age of thirteen, in violation of La. R.S. 14:42.1 The

punishment for this offense is necessarily confinement at hard labor, so a jury of

twelve persons was required. See La. Const. Art. I, § 17; La. C.Cr.P. art. 782; La.

R.S. 14:42. At the conclusion of defendant’s trial, a non-unanimous jury found

defendant guilty as charged by a vote of eleven to one. The trial court sentenced

defendant to life imprisonment at hard labor without benefit of parole, probation,

or suspension of sentence.

On appeal to this Court, as one of his assigned errors, defendant argued that

his conviction by a non-unanimous jury violated his Sixth Amendment right to a

fair trial.2 However, at the time of defendant’s conviction, 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 conviction and sentence

1 After the offense in this case, La. R.S. 14:42 was amended in 2015 by La. Act No. 184, to rename the offense of aggravated rape to first degree rape. 2 In its order of remand, the Louisiana Supreme Court stated that even if the non-unanimous jury claim was not preserved for review, this Court should consider the issue as part of its error patent review, citing La. C.Cr.P. art. 920(2).

18-KA-650 1 on appeal, noting that the Louisiana Supreme Court and the other courts of this

state had repeatedly addressed the issue of non-unanimous jury verdicts and found

such verdicts to be constitutional.3 See State v. C.T., 18-650 (La. App. 5 Cir.

7/30/19), 279 So.3d 431, 441.

Thereafter, on April 20, 2020, the United States Supreme Court handed

down its decision in Ramos v. Louisiana, supra, finding 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.4 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.”

Pursuant to the Ramos decision, Louisiana defendants who were convicted

of serious offenses by non-unanimous juries and whose cases are still pending on

direct review are now entitled to new trials. In the present case, since the verdict

was not unanimous for the serious offense of aggravated rape of a juvenile under

the age of thirteen and because the case is still on direct review, we find that

defendant is entitled to a new trial. Accordingly, we vacate defendant’s conviction

and sentence and remand to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with

this opinion.5

DECREE

3 On appeal, defendant also raised as error that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. After review, this Court found the sufficiency argument to be without merit. See State v. C.T., 279 So.3d at 437. 4 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). 5 In our prior opinion in this case, this Court noted on error patent review that defendant had not been notified at sentencing of the Louisiana’s sex offender registration requirements pursuant to La. R.S. 15:540 et seq. We remanded to the trial court to provide defendant with written notice of these requirements. See C.T., 279 So.3d at 442. However, given our decision to vacate defendant’s conviction and sentence, this error patent is now moot.

18-KA-650 2

For the foregoing reasons, defendant’s conviction and sentence are vacated

and the matter is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with

this opinion.

CONVICTION AND SENTENCE VACATED; REMANDED

18-KA-650 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

NOTICE OF JUDGMENT AND CERTIFICATE OF DELIVERY I CERTIFY THAT A COPY OF THE OPINION IN THE BELOW-NUMBERED MATTER HAS BEEN DELIVERED IN ACCORDANCE WITH UNIFORM RULES - COURT OF APPEAL, RULE 2-16.4 AND 2-16.5 THIS DAY JULY 15, 2020 TO THE TRIAL JUDGE, CLERK OF COURT, COUNSEL OF RECORD AND ALL PARTIES NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL, AS LISTED BELOW:

18-KA-650

E-NOTIFIED 24TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT (CLERK) HONORABLE CORNELIUS E. REGAN (DISTRICT JUDGE) MARTIN E. REGAN, JR. (APPELLANT) TERRY M. BOUDREAUX (APPELLEE) JULIET L. CLARK (APPELLEE) COLIN CLARK (APPELLEE) ANDREA F. LONG (APPELLEE) J. TAYLOR GRAY (APPELLEE)

MAILED GRAHAM DAPONTE (APPELLANT) HON. JEFFREY M. LANDRY (APPELLEE) HON. PAUL D. CONNICK, JR. (APPELLEE) ATTORNEY AT LAW ATTORNEY GENERAL DISTRICT ATTORNEY 2125 ST. CHARLES AVENUE LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE TWENTY-FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NEW ORLEANS, LA 70130 1885 NORTH 3RD STREET 200 DERBIGNY STREET 6TH FLOOR, LIVINGSTON BUILDING GRETNA, LA 70053 BATON ROUGE, LA 70802