Opinion
NO. 2018-KA-1039
06-17-2020
STATE of Louisiana v. Blair TAYLOR
Leon Cannizzaro, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ORLEANS PARISH, Donna Andrieu, Irena Zajickova, ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEYS, ORLEANS PARISH, 619 S. White Street, New Orleans, LA 70119 COUNSEL FOR THE STATE Christopher A. Aberle, LOUISIANA APPELLATE PROJECT, P.O. Box 8583, Mandeville, LA 70470-8583 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT Blair Taylor #720597, Louisiana State Penitentiary, Camp - C Jag 1 - Left - 4, Angola, LA 70712 PRO SE DEDEFENDANT
Leon Cannizzaro, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ORLEANS PARISH, Donna Andrieu, Irena Zajickova, ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEYS, ORLEANS PARISH, 619 S. White Street, New Orleans, LA 70119 COUNSEL FOR THE STATE
Christopher A. Aberle, LOUISIANA APPELLATE PROJECT, P.O. Box 8583, Mandeville, LA 70470-8583 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT
Blair Taylor #720597, Louisiana State Penitentiary, Camp - C Jag 1 - Left - 4, Angola, LA 70712 PRO SE DEDEFENDANT
(Court composed of Judge Terri F. Love, Judge Joy Cossich Lobrano, Judge Paula A. Brown )
ON REMAND FROM LOUISIANA SUPREME COURT
Judge, Paula A. Brown
This criminal appeal is on remand from the Louisiana Supreme Court following Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U.S. ––––, 140 S.Ct. 1390, 206 L.Ed.2d 583 (2020) (hereinafter referenced as " Ramos "), wherein the United States Supreme Court held that non-unanimous jury verdicts are unconstitutional in state felony prosecutions.
In the case sub judice, Defendant, Blair Taylor, along with two others, arrived at a house on Burgundy Street located in New Orleans, Louisiana, on August 10, 2014, and opened gunfire on several adults, teens, and children located in the front yard and front porch of the house. Defendant was convicted by a jury, with a vote of eleven to one as to each count, on the charges of second degree murder (two counts) and attempted second degree murder (five counts). Defendant appealed, and this Court affirmed Defendant's convictions and sentences. See State v. Taylor, 18-1039, 2019 WL 1715768 *1-*9 (La. App. 4 Cir. 4/17/19). Defendant did not object to his non-unanimous verdicts at the trial court level nor did he raise the issue on appeal. In an application for rehearing to this Court, Defendant raised for the first time the issue of his non-unanimous verdicts and argued this Court should consider the issue. Defendant's application for rehearing was denied on May 8, 2019.
The district court specifically recounted the jury's polling slips, reciting: "Count 1 is 11-1. Count 2 is 11-1. Count 3 is 11-1. Count 4 is 11-1.... Count 5, 11-1. Count 6, 11-1. Count 7, 11-1. All as to Blair Taylor."
Judge Lobrano concurred in the result.
Defendant sought review by the Louisiana Supreme Court, and while Defendant's writ application was pending, the United States Supreme Court decided Ramos, wherein the Court determined that non-unanimous verdicts were not permitted by the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and the prohibition applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. 590 U.S. at ––––, 140 S.Ct. at 1397. The Ramos decision overruled long-standing precedent authorizing non-unanimous jury verdicts in state prosecutions. As a result of the Ramos decision, the Louisiana Supreme Court granted Defendant's pending writ application and remanded Defendant's case to this Court to conduct an error patent review:
The matter is remanded to the court of appeal for further proceedings and to conduct a new error patent review in light of Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U.S. ––––, 140 S.Ct. 1390, 206 L.Ed.2d 583 (2020). If the non-unanimous jury claim was not preserved for review in the trial court or was abandoned during any stage of the proceedings, the court of appeal should nonetheless consider the issue as part of its error patent review. See La. C.Cr.P. art. 920(2).
The present matter was pending on direct review when Ramos v. Louisiana was decided, and therefore the holding of Ramos applies. See Griffith v. Kentucky, 479 U.S. 314, 328, 107 S.Ct. 708, 716, 93 L.Ed.2d 649 (1987)....
State v. Taylor, 19-00946, p. 1 (La. 6/3/20), 296 So.3d 1020.
This Court routinely reviews the record on appeal for errors patent. La. C.Cr.P. art. 920 ; State v. Lewis, 15-0773, p. 9 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2/3/16), 187 So.3d 24, 29. A review of the record reveals one error patent. All of Defendant's convictions were by non-unanimous jury verdicts, rendering his convictions unconstitutional in light of Ramos. Consequently, Defendant's convictions and sentences are vacated, and the case is remanded to the district court for further proceedings.
La. C.Cr.P. art. 920(2) states that an errors patent is "[a]n error that is discoverable by a inspection of the pleadings and proceedings and without inspection of the evidence." State v. Duckett, 19-0319, p. 8 (La. App. 4 Cir. 12/18/19), 288 So.3d 167
See Taylor, 19-00946, p. 1, 296 So.3d at –––– (citation omitted)(wherein the Louisiana Supreme Court indicated non-unanimous verdicts in felony prosecutions should be reviewed on error patent review and concluded that "the present matter was pending on direct review when Ramos v. Louisiana was decided, and therefore the holding of Ramos applies."); See also, State v. Jenkins, 20-2, 2020 WL 3071594 *1-*2, (La. App. 3 Cir. 6/10/20) (wherein the Third Circuit, citing Ramos, recognized as an error patent that the version of La. C.Cr.P. art. 782 in effect at the time of the time of the commission of the offense, which allowed an non-unanimous jury verdict on a charge such as second degree murder, was unconstitutional because it authorized a non-unanimous jury verdict.)
The Ramos Court noted "no one before us suggest that the error is harmless." 590 U.S. at ––––, 140 S.Ct. at 1408.
--------
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing reasons, Defendant's convictions and sentences are vacated, and the case is remanded to the district court for further proceedings.