State of Louisiana Versus Juan Alexander

STATE OF LOUISIANA NO. 20-KA-95

VERSUS FIFTH CIRCUIT

JUAN ALEXANDER COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF LOUISIANA

ON APPEAL FROM THE FORTIETH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF ST. JOHN THE BAPTIST, STATE OF LOUISIANA
NO. 15,508, DIVISION "C"
HONORABLE J. STERLING SNOWDY, JUDGE PRESIDING

November 03, 2021

ROBERT A. CHAISSON
JUDGE

Panel composed of Judges Marc E. Johnson,
Robert A. Chaisson, and John J. Molaison, Jr.

CONVICTIONS AND SENTENCES VACATED; MATTER REMANDED
RAC
MEJ
JJM

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE,
STATE OF LOUISIANA
Honorable Bridget A. Dinvaut
Henri P. Dufresne

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT,
JUAN ALEXANDER
C. Gary Wainwright

CHAISSON, J.

Defendant, Juan Alexander, appeals his convictions for attempted

manslaughter, possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, and illegal use of

weapons. For the reasons that follow, we vacate defendant’s convictions and

sentences and remand the matter to the trial court for further proceedings.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Defendant was charged, by grand jury indictment, with second degree

murder, in violation of La. R.S. 14:30.1 (count one), attempted second degree

murder, in violation of La. R.S. 14:27 and La. R.S. 14:30.1 (count two), possession

of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of La. R.S. 14:95.1 (count three), and

illegal use of weapons, in violation of La. R.S. 14:94(A) (count four). On June 14,

2018, following a jury trial, defendant was found not guilty on count one, guilty of

attempted manslaughter on count two, and guilty as charged on counts three and

four. Defendant was ultimately sentenced as a multiple offender to thirty-five

years on count two (attempted manslaughter), twenty years on count three

(possession of a firearm by a convicted felon), and three years on count four

(illegal use of weapons), to run concurrently. Defendant thereafter filed a motion

for appeal, which was granted.

On May 18, 2020, pursuant to a motion to supplement filed by defendant,

this Court issued an order to the Clerk of Court for the 40th Judicial District Court

to supplement the appellate record with the “[j]ury polling slips, to the extent they

are able to be obtained; or, if they are not obtainable, a per curiam from the Court

explaining why.” On May 22, 2020, the district court issued a per curiam, which

stated that no polling slips existed because the parties waived a polling of the jury.

Subsequent thereto, defendant filed a motion to remand, requesting that the matter

be remanded to the trial court with an order that the twelve jurors who served on

the jury in this matter be summoned to court to be sworn and to answer questions

20-KA-95 1

regarding their votes on the verdicts in this case. On January 29, 2021, this Court

remanded the matter to the trial court with an order “to conduct further

proceedings, as deemed appropriate by the trial court, in order to ascertain whether

the verdict on each count for which defendant was convicted was unanimous.”

This Court also ordered the trial court to provide a per curiam to this Court, with

instructions to state the outcome with as much specificity as can be ascertained.

Pursuant to this Court’s order, the trial court conducted a hearing on March

23, 2021, during which the twelve jurors were individually questioned about their

verdicts. On March 30, 2021, the trial court issued a per curiam, setting forth the

jury verdict on each of the four counts and concluding that “the four verdicts

rendered in this matter were not unanimous.”

Defendant thereafter filed a supplemental brief in this Court.1 Therein,

defendant argues that his convictions are based on unconstitutional, non-

unanimous verdicts and should be overturned and that the State should be barred

from trying him again “upon the matters upon which acquittals were recorded.”

LAW AND ANALYSIS

Defendant was charged with second degree murder (count one), attempted

second degree murder (count two), possession of a firearm by a convicted felon

(count three), and illegal use of weapons (count four). Since the punishments for

the offenses in counts one through three were necessarily confinement at hard

labor, a jury of twelve persons was required. See La. Const. Art. I, § 17; La.

C.Cr.P. art. 782. Also, a jury of twelve persons was required for count four since it

was charged in the same indictment as the other counts because it was part of a

1
In his original brief, defendant raised four assignments of error, one of which involved a challenge to the
sufficiency of the evidence. We have reviewed the record for sufficiency of the evidence and find that the
State offered evidence at trial that a jury could find sufficient to support the convictions in counts two,
three, and four, pursuant to the standard set forth in Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61
L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). Thus, defendant is not entitled to an acquittal for the crimes of which he was
convicted under Hudson v. Louisiana, 450 U.S. 40, 101 S.Ct. 970, 67 L.Ed.2d 30 (1981). See State v.
Hearold, 603 So.2d 731 (La. 1992) and State v. Harrell, 19-371 (La. App. 5 Cir. 7/8/20), 299 So.3d 1274,
1280 n.12.

20-KA-95 2

“common scheme or plan.” See La. C.Cr.P. arts. 493, 493.2, 782. Non-unanimous

verdicts were previously allowed under these provisions and based on the

circumstances of the instant case. The constitutionality of non-unanimous jury

verdicts was upheld in both State v. Bertrand, 08-2215, 08-2311 (La. 3/17/09),

6 So.3d 738, and Apodaca v. Oregon, 406 U.S. 404, 92 S.Ct. 1628, 32 L.Ed.2d 184

(1972).

However, 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.2 The Court concluded, “There can be no question either that the Sixth

Amendment’s unanimity requirement applies to state and federal criminal 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.”

Ramos, 140 S.Ct. at 1397. According to Ramos, Louisiana will have to retry

defendants who have been convicted of serious offenses by non-unanimous juries

and whose cases are still pending on direct review. See State v. Kelly, 19-425 (La.

App. 5 Cir. 7/31/20), 299 So.3d 1284; State v. Rivas, 19-378 (La. App. 5 Cir.

5/21/20), 296 So.3d 1198; State v. Spottsville, 20-99 (La. App. 5 Cir. 12/23/20),

308 So.3d 1240.

In the present case, according to the trial court’s per curiam, defendant was

convicted of attempted manslaughter (count two), 3 possession of a firearm by a

2
For purposes of the Sixth Amendment, federal law defines serious offenses as offenses subject to
imprisonment over six months. State v. Harrell, 299 So.3d at 1283.
3
In count two of the indictment, defendant was charged with attempted second degree murder but was
convicted of the lesser included offense of attempted manslaughter by a non-unanimous verdict. In his
supplemental appellate brief, defendant asserts that the jury implicitly acquitted him of attempted second
degree murder when it returned the verdict of attempted manslaughter. Thus, defendant asserts that the
State should be barred from trying him again for attempted second degree murder. At this point, we find
this issue to be premature as, to our knowledge, the State has not indicated whether it will seek to re-try
defendant on the attempted second degree murder charge.

20-KA-95 3

convicted felon (count three), and illegal use of weapons (count four) by a non-

unanimous jury verdict. Because the verdicts for these serious offenses were not

unanimous and the case is still on direct review, we find that defendant is entitled

to a new trial on counts two, three, and four pursuant to the holding in Ramos,

supra. 4

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we vacate defendant’s convictions and sentences

for attempted manslaughter, possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, and

illegal use of weapons, and we remand the matter to the trial court for further

proceedings consistent with this opinion.

CONVICTIONS AND SENTENCES
VACATED; MATTER REMANDED

4
We recognize that defendant was found not guilty of second degree murder (count one) by a non-
unanimous jury. This opinion in no way implicates that verdict. First, when the trial court asked the
jurors what their verdict was on count one, it went beyond this Court’s January 29, 2021 directive to
ascertain whether the verdict on each count for which defendant was convicted was unanimous. Further,
La. C.Cr.P. art. 912(C) provides that “[t]he judgments or rulings from which the defendant may appeal
include, but are not limited to: (1) A judgment which imposes sentence.” Defendant did not appeal count
one because he was not convicted or sentenced on that count. Accordingly, count one is not before this
Court on appeal.

20-KA-95 4

SUSAN M. CHEHARDY CURTIS B. PURSELL

CHIEF JUDGE CLERK OF COURT

NANCY F. VEGA
FREDERICKA H. WICKER
CHIEF DEPUTY CLERK
JUDE G. GRAVOIS
MARC E. JOHNSON
ROBERT A. CHAISSON SUSAN S. BUCHHOLZ
STEPHEN J. WINDHORST
FIRST DEPUTY CLERK
HANS J. LILJEBERG
JOHN J. MOLAISON, JR. FIFTH CIRCUIT
MELISSA C. LEDET
JUDGES 101 DERBIGNY STREET (70053)
DIRECTOR OF CENTRAL STAFF
POST OFFICE BOX 489
GRETNA, LOUISIANA 70054 (504) 376-1400

(504) 376-1498 FAX
www.fifthcircuit.org

NOTICE OF JUDGMENT AND CERTIFICATE OF DELIVERY
I CERTIFY THAT A COPY OF THE OPINION IN THE BELOW-NUMBERED MATTER HAS BEEN DELIVERED
IN ACCORDANCE WITH UNIFORM RULES - COURT OF APPEAL, RULE 2-16.4 AND 2-16.5 THIS DAY
NOVEMBER 3, 2021 TO THE TRIAL JUDGE, CLERK OF COURT, COUNSEL OF RECORD AND ALL PARTIES
NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL, AS LISTED BELOW:

20-KA-95
E-NOTIFIED
40TH DISTRICT COURT (CLERK)
HONORABLE J. STERLING SNOWDY (DISTRICT JUDGE)
HENRI P. DUFRESNE (APPELLEE) HONORABLE BRIDGET A. DINVAUT C. GARY WAINWRIGHT (APPELLANT)
GRANT L. WILLIS (APPELLEE) (APPELLEE)

MAILED
HONORABLE JEFFREY M. LANDRY
(APPELLEE)
ATTORNEY GENERAL
LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
1885 NORTH 3RD STREET
6TH FLOOR, LIVINGSTON BUILDING
BATON ROUGE, LA 70802