State of Louisiana v. Nathaniel Lambert

STATE OF LOUISIANA * NO. 2018-KA-0777

VERSUS *
COURT OF APPEAL
NATHANIEL LAMBERT *
FOURTH CIRCUIT
*
STATE OF LOUISIANA
*******

CONSOLIDATED WITH: CONSOLIDATED WITH:

STATE OF LOUISIANA NO. 2018-K-1024

VERSUS

NATHANIEL LAMBERT

APPEAL FROM
CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT ORLEANS PARISH
NO. 387-752, SECTION “D”
Honorable Kimya M. Holmes, Judge
******
Judge Tiffany Gautier Chase
******
ON REMAND

(Court composed of Judge Daniel L. Dysart, Judge Joy Cossich Lobrano, Judge
Tiffany Gautier Chase)

James William Craig
Hannah Lommers-Johnson
THE RODERICK & SOLANGE MACARTHUR JUSTICE CENTER
4400 S. Carrollton Avenue
New Orleans, LA 70119

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT

Jason Rogers Williams
G. Benjamin Cohen
DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ORLEANS PARISH
619 S. White Street
New Orleans, LA 70119

COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLEE, THE STATE OF LOUISIANA

AFFIRMED IN PART; RELIEF DENIED
DECEMBER 15, 2021

TGC
DLD
JCL 1
This matter is before this Court on remand from the United States Supreme

Court pursuant to its opinion in Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U.S. ___, 140 S.Ct. 1390,

206 L.Ed.2d 583 (2020). Accordingly, we review our previous affirmation of

defendant’s re-sentence in light of Ramos. Based on the record before this Court

and Ramos, we affirm defendant’s conviction and sentence for aggravated rape;

find that he is not entitled to relief for the aggravated burglary conviction and

sentence; and find that defendant’s challenge to his conviction and sentence for

aggravated crime against nature is moot.

Facts and Procedural History

The facts of this case are not relevant to the underlying appeal but are set

forth in this Court’s first appellate opinion. State v. Lambert, 1998-0730 (La.App.

4 Cir. 11/17/99), 749 So.2d 739, writ denied, 2000-1346 (La. 1/26/01), 781 So.2d

1258.1 After a trial on the merits, defendant was found guilty of aggravated rape,

1
For further facts and procedural history see State ex rel. Lambert v. State, 2002-2119 (La.
8/29/03), 852 So.2d 1014; State ex rel. Lambert v. State, 2004-2987 (La. 8/19/05), 908 So.2d
650; State ex rel. Lambert v. State, 2006-1038 (La. 11/3/06), 940 So.2d 659; State ex rel.
Lambert v. State, 2010-0205 (La. 1/28/11), 56 So.3d 972; State ex rel. Lambert v. State, 2012-
1219 (La. 9/28/12), 98 So.3d 836.

1

aggravated burglary and aggravated crime against nature. Defendant’s conviction

for aggravated rape was by a unanimous jury.2 The jury returned non-unanimous

verdicts (11-1) on the aggravated burglary and aggravated crime against nature

charges. Defendant subsequently filed a motion for new trial. Prior to ruling on

defendant’s motion for new trial, the trial court sentenced defendant to life

imprisonment on the aggravated rape conviction; thirty years on the aggravated

burglary conviction; and fifteen years on the aggravated crime against nature

conviction. The trial court subsequently vacated the original thirty-year sentence

on defendant’s conviction of aggravated burglary and re-sentenced him as a

multiple offender to life imprisonment. While affirming defendant’s convictions of

aggravated rape, aggravated burglary and aggravated crime against nature, this

Court vacated the sentences on the aggravated rape and aggravated crime against

nature convictions based on the trial court’s failure to rule on the motion for new

trial prior to sentencing. Id. The trial court did not re-sentence defendant until

2018, at which time it imposed a parole-ineligible life sentence on the aggravated

rape conviction and a 15-year sentence on the aggravated crime against nature

conviction.

In his second appeal, defendant sought appellate review of the newly

imposed sentences and this Court affirmed, finding no prejudice resulting from the

delay between convictions and re-sentencing.3 State v. Lambert, 2018-0777 (La.

App. 4 Cir. 3/27/19), 267 So.3d 648, writ denied, 2019-00736 (La. 1/22/20), 291

So.3d 1043. On March 16, 2020, after the Louisiana Supreme Court denied writs

2
Defendant’s unanimous conviction for aggravated rape is reflected in the trial court’s minute
entry.
3
This Court also denied defendant’s consolidated writ seeking review of the trial court’s denial
of his motion to correct illegal sentence. Lambert, 2018-0777, p. 1, 267 So.3d at 650.
2

but prior to the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Ramos, defendant filed

a writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme Court. On October 4, 2020, the

United States Supreme Court granted defendant’s writ of certiorari; vacated this

Court’s judgment affirming defendant’s re-sentence; and remanded the matter to

this Court for further consideration in light of Ramos. Lambert v. Louisiana, ___

U.S. ___, 141 S.Ct. 225, 208 L.Ed.2d 1 (2020).

Discussion

Defendant’s convictions of aggravated burglary and aggravated crime

against nature were non-unanimous, however, his conviction of aggravated rape

was unanimous. Thus, Ramos provides no relief to defendant as to his conviction

and sentence of aggravated rape. Further, defendant’s conviction and sentence of

aggravated burglary were both final as of defendant’s first appeal. Lambert, 1998-

0730, p. 45, 749 So.2d at 767, writ denied, 2000-1346 (La. 1/26/01), 781 So.2d

1258. There was no requirement for re-sentencing on defendant’s conviction of

aggravated burglary and neither his conviction nor sentence for this charge were at

issue in defendant’s second appeal. See Lambert, 2018-0777, 267 So.3d 648.

Therefore, Ramos does not affect defendant’s conviction and sentence of

aggravated burglary.

Whether Ramos operates to vacate defendant’s conviction of aggravated

crime against nature is the only remaining issue in the current appeal. On May 17,

2021, the United States Supreme Court rendered its opinion in Edwards v. Vannoy,

___U.S.___, 141 S.Ct. 1547, 209 L.Ed.2d 651 (2021), which held that Ramos only

applied to cases on direct review. Thus, the narrow issue presented to this Court is

whether defendant’s challenge to his re-sentencing of the aggravated crime against

3

nature count was part of his direct appeal and thus entitles him to relief under

Ramos.

Direct Review of Re-sentencing

Contextually analyzing the narrow issue articulated above, defendant asserts

that he remains on direct review because his sentence for aggravated crime against

nature was not final at the time Ramos was decided. He maintains that the finality

of his sentence did not occur as he was continuing to challenge his re-sentencing.

Additionally, defendant submits that because his re-sentence was being reviewed,

through a writ of certiorari at the time Ramos was decided, his aggravated crime

against nature sentence never became final. Therefore, because he had not obtained

a final judgment his case remains on direct review. Conversely, the State argues

that defendant completed his entire sentence for aggravated crime against nature

and thus, the conviction and sentence on that count is final and no longer subject to

direct review. A writ of certiorari filed in the United States Supreme Court seeks

review of a state’s highest court ruling. In the case sub judice, on January 22, 2020

the Louisiana Supreme Court denied writs on this Court’s affirmation of

defendant’s re-sentencing. Approximately two months later, defendant timely filed

a writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court. The United States

Supreme Court rendered its decision in Ramos on April 20, 2020 and granted

defendant’s writ of certiorari on October 4, 2020. Defendant’s challenge to his re-

sentence was pending when the United States Supreme Court rendered its decision

in Ramos and is on direct review.

The right to appeal is a personal right and the defendant must be afforded an

opportunity to exhaust all appellate options regarding the charge of aggravated

crime against nature. See La. Const. Art. 1, § 19; see also State v. Gonzales, 1995-
4

0860, p. 7 (La.App. 4 Cir. 9/18/96), 680 So.2d 1253, 1256 (citing State v.

Simmons, 390 So.2d 504 (La. 1980)). An appeal is the exercise of the right of the

defendant or the state to have a ruling or judgment reviewed by the proper

appellate court. La. C.Cr.P. art. 911. Pursuant to La. Const. Art. 1, § 19, “[n]o

person shall be subjected to imprisonment or forfeiture of rights or property

without the right of judicial review based upon a complete record of all evidence

upon which the judgment is based… .”

However, “Louisiana has adopted the view that the satisfaction of the

sentence renders the case moot so as to preclude review of or attack on the

conviction or sentence.” State v. Malone, 08-2253, p. 4 (La. 12/1/09), 25 So.3d

113, 117 (citing State v. Morris, 328 So.2d 65, 66 (La. 1976)).4 Defendant’s

current legal issue became moot when defendant was re-sentenced on April 3,

2018, having served more than fifteen years on the aggravated crime against nature

charge. In addition, defendant’s conviction for aggravated crime against nature,

which he contends would trigger a Ramos analysis, became final on April 26,

2001, when the delays for seeking a writ of certiorari from the United States

Supreme Court expired. See U.S. Sup.Ct. R. 13(1). Accordingly, we find that

defendant’s full satisfaction of his sentence for aggravated crime against nature

moots appellate review pertaining to a Ramos claim.

4
In Malone, 08-2253, p. 3, 25 So.3d at 116 (citation omitted), the Supreme Court recognized that
the federal rule, which the Court did not adopt, “generally allows review of a conviction where
there are serious collateral consequences, such as where the conviction is used to increase the
sentence for a subsequent crime, where the defendant’s parole has been revoked from an earlier
sentence due to the conviction, where the defendant has suffered a loss of his civil rights, or has
been deprived of certain privileges.” Id., 08-2253, p. 3, 25 So.3d at 116 (citation omitted). In the
case sub judice, Defendant failed to make a showing that, after his re-sentencing for aggravated
crime against nature on April 3, 2018, he suffered any serious collateral consequences due to the
resentencing, and especially considering that his sentence was satisfied.
5

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, we affirm defendant’s conviction and sentence for

aggravated rape; find that he is not entitled to relief for the aggravated burglary

conviction and sentence; and find that defendant’s challenge to his conviction and

sentence for aggravated crime against nature is moot.

AFFIRMED IN PART; RELIEF DENIED

6