Opinion
NO. 18-KA-445
12-09-2020
STATE of Louisiana v. Ron C. YOUNGBLOOD
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE, STATE OF LOUISIANA, Ricky L. Babin, Lindsey D. Manda COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT, RON C. YOUNGBLOOD, Ron C. Youngblood, Lieu T. Vo Clark
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE, STATE OF LOUISIANA, Ricky L. Babin, Lindsey D. Manda
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT, RON C. YOUNGBLOOD, Ron C. Youngblood, Lieu T. Vo Clark
Panel composed of Judges Marc E. Johnson, Stephen J. Windhorst, and John J. Molaison, Jr.
JOHNSON, J.
On remand from the Louisiana Supreme Court and pursuant to its order, this Court conducts a new errors patent review of Defendant, Ron Youngblood's, convictions and sentences in light of Ramos v. Louisiana , 590 U.S. ––––, 140 S.Ct. 1390, 206 L.Ed.2d 583 (2020). See , State v. Youngblood , 19-1160 (La. 6/3/20), 296 So.3d 1022. For the following reasons, we find that Defendant is entitled to a new trial on count one, vacate Defendant's conviction and sentence on count one, and remand the matter to the trial court for further proceedings.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Defendant, Ron Youngblood, was indicted by a grand jury on August 11, 2015 and charged with two counts of attempted first degree murder of Deputy Michael Dufresne and Sergeant Dustin Jenkins, in violation of La. R.S. 14:27 and La. R.S. 14:30 (counts one and two), and one count of felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of La. R.S. 14:95.1 (count three). State v. Youngblood , 18-445 (La. App. 5 Cir. 5/22/19), 274 So.3d 716, 725, writ granted, cause remanded , 19-1160 (La. 6/3/20), 296 So.3d 1022. He pled not guilty and proceeded to trial on September 25, 2017. Id . After a five-day trial, the jury found Defendant guilty on counts one and three and not guilty on count two (attempted first degree murder of Sergeant Jenkins). Id . On January 22, 2018, the trial court sentenced Defendant to 50 years at hard labor on count one and 20 years at hard labor on count three, both without benefit of parole, probation or suspension of sentence, to run consecutively. Id . On appeal, this Court affirmed Defendant's convictions and sentences. See , Id . at 724.
LAW AND ANALYSIS
In Ramos v. Louisiana , 590 U.S. ––––, 140 S.Ct. 1390, 206 L.Ed.2d 583 (2020), the United States Supreme Court found that the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial—as incorporated against the states by the Fourteenth Amendment—requires a unanimous verdict to convict a defendant of a serious offense. The Court concluded, "There can be no question either that the Sixth Amendment's unanimity requirement applies to state and federal trials equally. So if the Sixth Amendment's right to a jury trial requires a unanimous verdict to support a conviction in federal court, it requires no less in state court." Id. , 140 S.Ct. at 1397.
According to Ramos , Louisiana will have to retry defendants who were convicted of serious offenses by non-unanimous juries and whose cases are still pending on direct appeal. In a per curiam opinion, the Louisiana Supreme Court granted Defendant's writ, finding "[t]he present matter was pending on direct review when Ramos v. Louisiana was decided, and therefore the holding of Ramos applies." State v. Youngblood , 296 So.3d at 1022. The supreme court remanded the matter and directed this Court conduct a new errors patent review in light of Ramos .
In this matter, the jury was polled on the record on the last day of Defendant's trial. The September 29, 2017 transcript shows that Defendant was convicted of attempted first degree murder (count one) by a verdict of 11-1, and the verdicts for count two and count three were unanimous. Because the jury verdicts for counts two (for which Defendant was found not guilty) and three were unanimous, we find that there is no error, and no corrective action is required pursuant to Ramos . Accordingly, we will not disturb our original opinion regarding count three. But, because the verdict for count one was not unanimous, and the instant case is still on direct review we find that, pursuant to Ramos , Defendant is entitled to a new trial on count one.
As part of the errors patent review, this Court considered sufficiency of the evidence as required by State v. Raymo , 419 So.2d 858 (La.1982) and State v. Hearold , 603 So.2d 731 (La.1992). We find that the State offered evidence at trial that a jury could find sufficient to establish all of the elements of the crimes of which Defendant was accused. Therefore, Defendant is not entitled to an acquittal under Hudson v. Louisiana , 450 U.S. 40, 101 S.Ct. 970, 67 L.Ed.2d 30 (1981).
--------
DECREE
Defendant's conviction and sentence on count three – felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of La. R.S. 14:95.1 – is affirmed. Defendant's conviction and sentence for count one – attempted first degree murder in violation of La. R.S. 14:27 and 14:30.1 – is vacated, and the matter is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.