STATE EX REL HONORE DOC 364747 v. VANNOY (2021)

WRIT DENIED

Relator, Steven Honore, seeks review of the trial court's July 29, 2021 denial of his application for post-conviction relief, contending that the trial court erred in failing to grant him a new trial in light of the United States Supreme Court's recent decision in Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U.S. ––––, 140 S.Ct. 1390, 206 L.Ed.2d 583 (2020). For the following reasons, we deny the writ.

On March 14, 2008, relator was convicted of second degree murder in violation of La. R.S. 14:30.1. The verdict was non-unanimous. On October 16, 2008, the trial court sentenced relator to life imprisonment at hard labor without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence. On January 12, 2010, this Court affirmed relator's conviction and sentence. State v. Honore, 09-313 (La. App. 5 Cir. 1/12/10), 31 So.3d 485.

On April 19, 2021, relator filed an application for post-conviction relief, contending that his non-unanimous jury verdict as to his second degree murder conviction was unconstitutional and insufficient to sustain his conviction and sentence in light of the United States Supreme Court's 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. Moreover, the United States Supreme Court has determined that the jury-unanimity rule in Ramos does not apply retroactively on federal collateral review. Edwards v. Vannoy, 593 U.S. ––––, 141 S.Ct. 1547, 1554, 209 L.Ed.2d 651 (2021). The Edwards Court determined, however, that states remain free to retroactively apply the jury-unanimity rule as a matter of state law in state post-conviction proceedings if they choose to do so. 141 S.Ct. at 1559, n.6 (citing Danforth v. Minnesota, 552 U.S. 264, 282, 128 S.Ct. 1029, 169 L.Ed.2d 859 (2008)).

Relator was convicted in 2008. At the time of his conviction, a non-unanimous jury verdict was not unconstitutional under Apodaca v. Oregon, 406 U.S. 404, 92 S.Ct. 1628, 32 L.Ed.2d 184 (1972), and relator's conviction became final prior to the Ramos decision. Edwards holds that Ramos is not retroactive for cases on federal collateral review, and Louisiana state laws currently do not provide that jury unanimity applies to serious offenses occurring before January 1, 2019, nor that the unanimity requirement applies retroactively to cases on state collateral review.¹ Accordingly, the trial court did not err in determining that relator failed to prove that he was entitled to post-conviction relief. Relator's writ application is denied.

Gretna, Louisiana, this 3rd day of November, 2021.

FOOTNOTES

1.   At this time, Louisiana law provides: “A case for an offense committed prior to January 1, 2019, in which punishment is necessarily confinement at hard labor shall be tried by a jury composed of twelve jurors, ten of whom must concur to render a verdict. A case for an offense committed on or after January 1, 2019, in which the punishment is necessarily confinement at hard labor shall be tried before a jury of twelve persons, all of whom must concur to render a verdict.” La. Const. Art. 1, § 17; La. C.Cr.P. art. 782 (A). Edwards does not repudiate these provisions. See Edwards, 141 S.Ct. at 1559-60 (2021).