Opinion
21-KH-703
12-21-2021
STATE OF LOUISIANA, EX REL. SHANNON BROWN, DOC # 517831 v. JERRY GOODWIN, WARDEN, DAVID WADECORRECTIONAL CENTER IN RE SHANNON BROWN
APPLYING FOR SUPERVISORY WRIT FROM THE FORTIETH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF ST JOHN THE BAPTIST, STATE OF LOUISIANA, DIRECTED TO THE HONORABLE VERCELL FIFFIE, DIVISION "A", NUMBER 04, 137
Panel composed of Judges Fredericka Homberg Wicker, Robert A. Chaisson, and Hans J. Liljeberg.
WRIT DENIED
Relator, Shannon Brown, seeks this Court's supervisory review of the trial court's August 11, 2021 ruling in open court denying his application for postconviction relief. For the following reasons, we find that relator is not entitled to the relief sought, and thus, deny the writ application.
Although relator's application does not include a copy of the district court's ruling, see Uniform Rules - Courts of Appeal, Rule 4-5(C)(6) requiring a "copy of the judgment, order, or ruling complained of," it appears from relator's representations that a written ruling was not issued by the district court.
On September 21, 2006, relator was convicted by a non-unanimous jury of one count of second-degree murder, a violation of La. R.S. 14:30.1. On November 8, 2006, the trial court sentenced relator to life imprisonment at hard labor without the benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence. On direct appeal, relator's conviction and sentence were affirmed and, on April 4, 2008, the Louisiana Supreme Court denied relator's application for writ of certiorari. State v. Brown, 07-228 (La.App. 5 Cir. 9/25/07); 968 So.2d 766, writ denied, 07-2193 (La. 4/4/08); 978 So.2d 325.
On or about April 7, 2021, relator filed a Second or Subsequent Application for Post-Conviction Relief ("APCR"). Therein, relator appears to claim that the United States Supreme Court's decision in Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U.S. --, 140 S.Ct. 1390, 206 L.Ed.2d 583 (2020), which held that a defendant who is tried for a serious crime has a right to a unanimous jury verdict, should be applied retroactively to vacate his conviction by a non-unanimous jury. Relator now seeks review of the trial court's August 11, 2021 ruling which denied his APCR on the basis that Ramos does not apply retroactively to cases on collateral review.
Prior to the instant application, relator filed an application for post-conviction relief on March 18, 2009, which was denied. See Brown v. Cain, 2010-0751 (La. 12/10/10); 51 So.3d 721. Relator also sought relief through federal habeas corpus, which was denied. Brown v. Cain, CIV.A. 11-2267, 2011 WL 7042222 (E.D. La. Dec. 20, 2011), report and recommendation adopted, CIV.A. 11-2267, 2012 WL 123288 (E.D. La. Jan. 17, 2012), aff'd, 535 Fed.Appx. 356 (5th Cir.2013)
Ramos explicitly applies only to cases pending on direct appeal and to future cases. 140 S.Ct. at 1407. And, on May 17, 2021, the United States Supreme Court 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 (2021). The Edwards Court noted, 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 2006. At the time of relator's 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 well before Ramos was decided. Edwards holds that Ramos is not retroactive in cases on federal collateral review, and our 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 collateral review.
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. I, § 17; La. C.Cr.P. art. 782 (A). Edwards does not repudiate these provisions. See Edwards, 141 S.Ct. at 1559-60 (2021).
For the foregoing reasons, we find that the trial court did not err in denying relator's APCR. Relator's writ application is accordingly denied.
Gretna, Louisiana, this 21st day of December, 2021.
FHW
RAC
HJL