Opinion
22-KH-22
02-07-2022
DANNY E. WINSTON v. TIM HOOPER, WARDEN IN RE DANNY E. WINSTON
APPLYING FOR SUPERVISORY WRIT FROM THE FORTIETH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF ST. JOHN THE BAPTIST, STATE OF LOUISIANA, DIRECTED TO THE HONORABLE NGHANA LEWIS, DIVISION "B", NUMBER 01, 92
Panel composed of Judges Marc E. Johnson, Robert A. Chaisson, and Stephen J. Windhorst
WRIT DENIED
Relator, Danny Winston, seeks review of the district court's denial of his application for post-conviction relief ("APCR").
On May 23, 2002, relator was found guilty by a jury of second degree murder. On July 2, 2002, the district court sentenced relator to life imprisonment at hard labor without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence. On March 25, 2003, this Court affirmed relator's conviction and sentence, and the Louisiana Supreme Court thereafter denied relator's writ application. State v. Winston, 02-1161 (La.App. 5 Cir. 3/25/03), 844 So.2d 184, writ denied, 03-1284 (La. 11/14/03), 858 So.2d 419.
In April of 2021, relator filed an APCR in the district court, arguing that Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U.S. ___, 140 S.Ct. 1390, 206 L.Ed.2d 583 (2020), which declared non-unanimous jury verdicts unconstitutional, should be applied retroactively to his case. In addition, relator challenged the constitutionality of the jury instruction that authorized the return of a non-unanimous verdict. On May 11, 2021, the district court denied relief, stating, in part: "Ramos does not implicate cases where the jury verdict was unanimous, as is the case at bar."
Relator now challenges that ruling. In his writ application, relator focuses on the district court's failure to address his argument concerning the unconstitutionality of the jury instruction which authorized the return of a non-unanimous verdict. He contends that the jury instruction given by the district court lowered the State's burden of proof necessary to convict from twelve to ten, thereby effectively directing a verdict in favor of the State. Relator maintains that this constituted a structural error in the proceedings, which requires that his conviction be set aside and that he be afforded a new trial. For the reasons that follow, we find that that relator is not entitled to the relief requested.
This Court has found that the jury instruction regarding non-unanimous verdicts is not a structural error since the instruction was in accordance with the law in Louisiana at the time of the trial, and it "does not fall within one of the six enumerated classes of cases" where structural error has been found. State v. Williams, 20-46 (La.App. 5 Cir. 12/30/20), 308 So.3d 791, 837, writ denied, 21-316 (La. 5/25/21), 316 So.3d 2. Further, the district court noted in its ruling that "the court minutes reflect all 12 jurors returned 'yes' guilty verdicts." Since the verdict in this case was unanimous, the holding in Ramos does not apply.
Accordingly, this writ application is denied.
RAC
MEJ
SJW