State Of Louisiana v. Jermaine Ruffin

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL
FIRST CIRCUIT

2018 KA 128OR

STATE OF LOUISIANA

VERSUS

JERMAINE RUFFEN

Judgment rendered FEB 2 4 2021

On Appeal from the
Nineteenth Judicial District Court
In and for the Parish of East Baton Rouge
State of Louisiana
No. 10- 13- 0798, Section II

The Honorable Richard D. Anderson, Judge Presiding

Hillar C. Moore III Attorneys for Plaintiff/Appellee
District Attorney State of Louisiana
Cristopher J. M. Casler
Assistant District Attorney
Baton Rouge, Louisiana

Prentice Lang White Attorney for Defendant/Appellant
Appellate Counsel Jermaine Ruffen
Baton Rouge, Louisiana

BEFORE: McDONALD, HOLDRIDGE, AND WOLFE, JJ.

k. eF..Gu^ o

Cv

HOLDRIDGE, J.

The defendant, Jermaine Ruffen,l was charged by grand jury indictment

with second degree murder ( count I), a violation of La. R.S. 14: 30. 1, and attempted

second degree murder ( count II), a violation of La. R.S. 14: 27 and La. R.S.

14: 30. 1. He pled not guilty on both counts. Following a trial by jury, the

defendant was found guilty as charged on both counts. On count I, he was

sentenced to life imprisonment at hard labor, without benefit of parole, probation,

or suspension of sentence. On count II, he was sentenced to fifty years

imprisonment at hard labor, without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of

sentence. The trial court ordered the sentences to run concurrently.

Subsequently, the defendant appealed to this court, raising one counseled

and three pro se assignments of error.2 This court affirmed the convictions and

sentences. State v. Ruffen, 2018- 1280 ( La. App. 1 Cir. 2/ 28/ 19), 2019 WL

968412. The Louisiana Supreme Court denied writs. State v. Ruffen, 2019-

00564 ( La. 9/ 6/ 19), 278 So. 3d 971. The United States Supreme Court granted the

defendant' s petition for a writ of certiorari, vacated the judgment, and remanded

the case to this court for further consideration in light of Ramos v. Louisiana, 590

U.S. , 140 S. Ct. 1390, 206 L.Ed.2d 583 ( 2020). Ruffin v. Louisiana, U.S.

141 S. Ct. 223, 208 L.Ed.2d 1 ( 2020). For the following reasons, we set aside

the convictions and sentences.

1 The appellate record contains various spellings of the defendant' s last name. This court
adopted the spelling used in the grand jury indictment.

2 In addition to his assigned errors, in his pro se brief, the defendant also asked this court to
examine the record for errors patent under La. C. Cr.P. art. 920( 2). Ruffen, 2019 WL 968412, at
6.
2

PATENT ERROR REVIEW/NON-UNANIMOUS JURY VERDICTS'

On remand, this court has reviewed the record pursuant to La. C. Cr.P. art.

920( 2). 4 Pursuant to La. C. Cr.P. art. 920( 2), this court shall consider "[ a] n error

that is discoverable by a mere inspection of the pleadings and proceedings and

without inspection of the evidence." The jury' s verdict is part of the pleadings and

proceedings that this court must review for errors. State v. Keys, 328 So. 2d 154,

157 ( La. 1976); State v. Anderson, 2017- 0927 ( La. App. 1 Cir. 4/ 6/ 18), 248 So. 3d

4159 418- 19, writ denied, 2018- 0738 ( La. 3/ 6/ 19), 266 So. 3d 901. Accordingly,

we note the following.

In this case, the minutes indicate that as to each count, ten out of twelve

jurors concurred in reaching guilty verdicts.5 In the recent decision of Ramos, 140

S. Ct. at 1397, the United States Supreme Court overruled Apodaca v. Oregon,6

406 U.S. 404, 92 S. Ct. 1628, 32 L.Ed.2d 184 ( 1972), and held that the right to a

jury trial under the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution, as

incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution,

requires a unanimous verdict to convict a defendant of a serious offense. Thus, the

Ramos Court declared non -unanimous jury verdicts unconstitutional. The Ramos

Court further noted that its ruling applied to those defendants convicted of felonies

3 For the facts of this case, please see this court' s previous opinion on original appellate review.
Ruffen, 2019 WL 968412, at * * 1- 2.

4
Recently, the Louisiana Supreme Court remanded several cases to our court " for further
proceedings and to conduct a new error patent review in light of Ramos...." See State v.
Curry, 2019- 01723 ( La. 6/ 3/ 20), 296 So. 3d 1030 (" 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)."). Therefore, consistent with our review of other appeals wherein the
convictions resulted from non -unanimous jury verdicts, we likewise shall conduct a new patent
error review in the instant appeal.

5 In this case, the minute entry and transcript clearly reflect that the jury verdict was not
unanimous.

6 Oregon' s non -unanimous jury verdict provision of its state constitution was challenged in
Apodaca. Johnson v. Louisiana, 406 U. S. 356, 92 S. Ct. 1620, 32 L.Ed.2d 152 ( 1972), decided
with Apodaca, upheld Louisiana' s then -existing constitutional and statutory provisions allowing
non -unanimous jury verdicts in criminal cases.
3

by non -unanimous verdicts whose cases are still pending on direct appeal. Ramos,
140 S. Ct. at 1406. Therefore, as the verdicts in this case were non -unanimous as to

each count, we must set aside the convictions and sentences, and the case must be

remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.

CONVICTIONS AND SENTENCES VACATED; REMANDED.

rd