State of Louisiana v. Ahmad Rainey

STATE OF LOUISIANA * NO. 2019-KA-0074

VERSUS *
COURT OF APPEAL
AHMAD RAINEY *
FOURTH CIRCUIT
*
STATE OF LOUISIANA
*******

APPEAL FROM
CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT ORLEANS PARISH
NO. 528-085, SECTION “G”
Honorable Dennis J. Waldron, Judge
******
Judge Paula A. Brown
******
ON REMAND FROM THE LOUISIANA SUPREME COURT

(Court composed of Judge Roland L. Belsome, Judge Paula A. Brown, Judge
Tiffany G. Chase)

Leon Cannizzaro
DISTRICT ATTORNEY ORLEANS PARISH
Donna Andrieu
Kyle Daly
DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE
ORLEANS PARISH
619 S. White Street
New Orleans, LA 70119

COUNSEL FOR STATE/APPELLEE

Mary Constance Hanes
LOUISIANA APPELLATE PROJECT
P. O. Box 4015
New Orleans, LA 70178-4015

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT

VACATED; REMANDED
October 21, 2020

PAB
RLB
TGC
This is a criminal appeal on remand by the Louisiana Supreme Court.

This Court, in State v. Rainey, 19-0074 (La. App. 4 Cir. 10/9/19), 282 So.3d

360, affirmed Defendant’s, Ahmad Rainey, conviction of manslaughter, by

unanimous verdict, and conviction of obstruction of justice, by a verdict of

ten to two; the sentences were vacated and remanded for resentencing.

Defendant sought review by the Louisiana Supreme Court, and it ordered

this Court to conduct a new error patent review as to the obstruction of

justice conviction, in light of Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U.S.___, 140 S.Ct.

1390 (2020) (hereinafter referenced as “Ramos”). In Ramos, the United

States Supreme Court held that non-unanimous jury verdicts are

unconstitutional in state felony prosecutions. In accordance with Ramos, we

vacate Defendant’s conviction of obstruction of justice and remand for a

new trial.

DISCUSSION

Defendant was indicted by a grand jury, in counts one and two, with

second-degree murder of Vernon Lewis and Daniel Millon (La. R.S. 14:30.1) and,

in count five, with obstruction of justice by tampering with evidence (La. R.S.

14:130.1). A co-defendant was also charged in the indictment, but the State

severed the trials.

On April 9, 2018, the day before jury selection began, the State filed a

motion to invoke firearm sentencing enhancement provision, pursuant to La.

C.Cr.P. arts. 893.1-893.3, as to Defendant’s sentences to be imposed on the

charges of second degree murder based on Defendant’s use of a firearm. After a

two-day jury trial, Defendant was found, on count one, guilty to the responsive

verdict of manslaughter of Mr. Lewis (unanimous verdict); on count two, not

guilty of second-degree murder of Mr. Millon; and on count five, guilty of

obstruction of justice (verdict of ten to two). Following denial of Defendant’s

motion for new trial, a sentencing hearing was held, and Defendant was sentenced

to twenty-eight (28) years imprisonment, at hard labor, for manslaughter and

twenty (20) years imprisonment, at hard labor, for obstruction of justice, with the

sentences to run concurrently. The district court applied the sentencing

enhancement provision of La. C.Cr.P. art. 893.3(E)2 to both sentences.

An appeal followed, wherein Defendant raised three assigned errors:

1
Rainey, 19-0074, 282 So.3d 360.
2
“[I]f the firearm is discharged during the commission of such a violent felony, the court shall
impose a minimum term of imprisonment of not less than twenty years nor more than the
maximum term of imprisonment provided for the underlying offense.” La. C.Cr.P. art. 893.3(E).

3

1. The State committed prosecutorial misconduct by severing co-defendant
on the morning of trial, depriving Defendant of due process and a fair trial;

2. The district court erred in sentencing Defendant for manslaughter under
the firearm sentencing enhancement provisions of La. C.Cr.P. art. 893.3
because the State “filed the required notice too late”; and

3. Defendant’s Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated by the
lack of a unanimous jury verdict on the conviction of obstruction of justice.

On appeal, this Court conducted an error patent review and affirmed

Defendant’s convictions, but vacated his sentences.3 Following, Defendant was

resentenced by the district court.4

Defendant applied for a writ of certiorari, which the Louisiana Supreme

Court granted and issued the following per curiam:

The matter is remanded to the court of appeal for further
proceedings and to conduct a new error patent review in light of
Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U.S. ___, 140 S.Ct. 1390, 206 L.Ed.2d 583
(2020). 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).

The present matter was pending on direct review when Ramos
v. Louisiana was decided, and therefore the holding of Ramos applies.
See Griffith v. Kentucky, 479 U.S. 314, 328, 107 S.Ct. 708, 716, 93
L.Ed.2d 649 (1987). . . .

State v. Rainey, 19-01795, p. 1 (La. 6/3/20), 296 So.3d 1042, 1043, reh’g denied,

19-01795, 2020 WL5904892, at *1 (La. 10/6/20).

A review of the record for errors patent5 reflects that Defendant was

convicted of obstruction of justice by a non-unanimous jury verdict. As a result, in

3
This Court vacated the sentences on the basis that the district court erred in applying the
firearm sentencing provisions of La. C.Cr.P. art. 893.3. Defendant raised the sentencing error as
to the manslaughter conviction, and this Court recognized the error as an error patent as to the
obstruction of justice conviction.
4
The minute entry of March 9, 2020 reflects that Defendant was resentenced to twenty-eight
(28) years imprisonment, at hard labor, for manslaughter and twenty (20) years imprisonment, at
hard labor, for obstruction of justice, with the sentences to run concurrently.

4

light of Ramos, we find that Defendant’s conviction of obstruction of justice,

which was by non-unanimous jury verdict, is unconstitutional. Consequently,

Defendant’s conviction and sentence for obstruction of justice are vacated, and the

case is remanded to the district court for further proceedings.

CONCLUSION

Pursuant to Ramos, Defendant’s conviction and sentence for obstruction of

justice are vacated, and the case is remanded to the district court for further

proceedings.

VACATED; REMANDED

5
By the Louisiana Supreme Court designating the issue of a non-unanimous jury verdict as an
error patent, whether the issue was properly preserved for review need not be addressed. We
note, however, the appellate record reflects that following the district court’s instructions to the
jury, defense counsel objected stating, “I want [to] object to the less than unanimous verdict
that’s in Louisiana law. . . .” In addition, Defendant raised the issue on appeal. This Court
discussed that the statutory, constitutional, and jurisprudential law in effect at the time the issue
was reviewed on appeal provided for a non-unanimous jury verdict for a conviction of
obstruction of justice. Rainey, 19-0074, pp. 22-23, 282 So.3d at 374.

5