STATE v. ROBERTSON (2021)

WRIT GRANTED; JUDGMENT VACATED

Relator, the State of Louisiana, seeks review of the trial court's judgment granting defendant, Jules Robertson, a new trial in light of the United States Supreme Court's recent holding in Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U.S. ––––, 140 S.Ct. 1390, 206 L.Ed.2d 583 (2020). For the following reasons, we grant the writ.

On February 18, 2011, Defendant was convicted of second degree murder of Nekeshia Joseph and attempted second degree murder of Ron James in violation of La. R.S. 14:30.1 and 14:27:30.1 following a jury trial with a 10-2 verdict. On April 18, 2011, defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment at hard labor without benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence for his second degree murder conviction and to twenty-five years imprisonment at hard labor without benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence for his attempted second-degree murder conviction. On May 31, 2012, this Court affirmed defendant's convictions and sentences. State v. Robertson, 11-1017 (La. App. 5 Cir. 5/31/12), 98 So. 3d 401, 403, writ denied, 12-1432 (La. 1/11/13), 106 So.3d 547.

On September 18, 2020, nearly eight years after his convictions and sentences became final, defendant filed an application for post-conviction relief in the trial court, claiming that his non-unanimous jury verdict was unconstitutional and insufficient to sustain his convictions and sentences in light of the United States Supreme Court's Ramos decision. On November 5, 2020, the trial judge granted defendant's application for post-conviction relief, ordering that defendant is entitled to a new trial pursuant to the United State Supreme Court's pronouncement in the Ramos decision.

La. C.Cr.P. art. 930.8 (A)(2) permits a defendant to seek post-conviction relief outside of the applicable time limitations if “the claim ․ is based upon a final ruling of an appeal court establishing a theretofore unknown interpretation of constitutional law and petitioner establishes that this interpretation is retroactively applicable to his case[.]” (Emphasis added). Ramos, which held that a defendant who is tried for a serious crime has a right to a unanimous jury verdict, applies only to cases pending on direct appeal and to future cases. 140 S.Ct. at 1407. The majority in Ramos specifically declined to decide whether the right to jury unanimity applies to now-final convictions and sentences, believing that issue is best left for another day. Id.¹ Additionally, the Louisiana Supreme Court has given no indication that it intends to apply Ramos retroactively. Should the United States Supreme Court or the Louisiana Supreme Court determine in the future that the right to a unanimous jury verdict applies to now-final judgments, defendant may be able to satisfy the requirements of La. C.Cr.P. art. 930.8 (A)(2) necessary for filing an application for out-of-time relief. However, at this time, defendant is not entitled to a new trial. Accordingly, the state's writ is granted and the November 5, 2020 trial court judgment is vacated.

Gretna, Louisiana, this 15th day of March, 2021.

FOOTNOTES

1.   On May 4, 2020, less than a month after issuing Ramos, the United States Supreme Court granted a writ of certiorari in Edwards v. Vannoy, ––– U.S. ––––, 140 S.Ct. 2737, 2738, 206 L.Ed.2d 917 (2020), limited to the question: “Whether this Court's decision in Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U.S. –––– (2020), applies retroactively to [a] case on federal collateral review.” The Edwards case was argued before the U.S. Supreme Court on December 2, 2020 but a decision has not yet been rendered.