Opinion
NO. 21-KA-143
11-24-2021
STATE of Louisiana v. Rojae DUMAS
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE, STATE OF LOUISIANA, Ricky L. Babin, Lindsey D. Manda, Donald D. Candell, Gonzales COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT, ROJAE DUMAS, Bruce G. Whittaker
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE, STATE OF LOUISIANA, Ricky L. Babin, Lindsey D. Manda, Donald D. Candell, Gonzales
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT, ROJAE DUMAS, Bruce G. Whittaker
Panel composed of Judges Susan M. Chehardy, Fredericka Homberg Wicker, and Hans J. Liljeberg
CHEHARDY, C.J. A nonunanimous jury convicted defendant, Rojae Dumas, of one count of manslaughter, a violation of La. R.S. 14:31. The trial court sentenced him to twenty-five years at hard labor, with credit for time served. Mr. Dumas appeals his conviction and sentence. Pursuant to Ramos v. Louisiana , 590 U.S. ––––, 140 S.Ct. 1390, 206 L.Ed.2d 583 (2020), we vacate Mr. Dumas’ conviction and sentence and remand the matter to the trial court for a new trial.
On February 26, 2018, Mr. Dumas was indicted for the second degree murder of his step-father, Reynald Jackson, a violation of La. R.S. 14:30.1. Mr. Dumas was arraigned and pled not guilty on March 19, 2018. Trial commenced before a twelve-person jury on September 17, 2019, and concluded on September 19, 2019, with a non-unanimous verdict by a margin of eleven to one of the responsive verdict of guilty of manslaughter.
On November 18, 2019, the trial court sentenced Mr. Dumas to twenty-five years at hard labor in the custody of the Department of Corrections, with credit for time served. On December 17, 2019, Mr. Dumas filed a pro se motion to reconsider sentence, which was denied on December 26, 2019. A motion for appeal was granted that same day.
Mr. Dumas now comes before this Court on original appeal requesting that his conviction and sentence be vacated on grounds that the non-unanimous verdict violates his rights to due process and equal protection guaranteed by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. We agree.
In Ramos , supra , the United States Supreme Court held that the Sixth Amendment's right to a jury trial, as incorporated against the States under the Fourteenth Amendment, requires a unanimous jury verdict to convict a defendant of a serious offense in both federal and state courts. As a result, the State will have to retry any defendant convicted of serious offenses by non-unanimous juries and whose cases are still pending on direct appeal. State v. Spears , 18-663 (La. App. 5 Cir. 1/13/21), 309 So.3d 1039, 1041. The instant case is currently pending on direct review of Mr. Dumas’ conviction for manslaughter, therefore, the holding in Ramos applies. State v. Cohen , 19-949 (La. 1/27/21), 315 So.2d 202, citing Griffith v. Kentucky , 479 U.S. 314, 107 S.Ct. 708, 93 L.Ed.2d 649 (1987).
The record reflects that Mr. Dumas’ conviction for manslaughter was by a 11-1 jury vote. Since the punishment for this offense necessitates confinement at hard labor, a jury concurrence of all 12 persons was required to render a verdict. Therefore, Mr. Dumas is entitled to a new trial.
DECREE
For the foregoing reasons, Rojas Dumas’ conviction and sentence for manslaughter are vacated, and the matter is remanded to the trial court for a new trial.