State of Louisiana v. Alfred Ravy

STATE OF LOUISIANA * NO. 2019-KA-0144

VERSUS *
COURT OF APPEAL
ALFRED RAVY *
FOURTH CIRCUIT
*
STATE OF LOUISIANA
*******

APPEAL FROM
CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT ORLEANS PARISH
NO. 533-218, SECTION “D”
Honorable Paul A Bonin, Judge
******
Judge Terri F. Love
******
(Court composed of Judge Terri F. Love, Judge Regina Bartholomew-Woods,
Judge Paula A. Brown)

(ON REMAND FROM THE LOUISIANA SUPREME COURT)

BARTHOLOMEW-WOODS, J., CONCURS IN THE RESULT

Leon Cannizzaro
District Attorney
Scott G. Vincent
Assistant District Attorney
ORLEANS PARISH
619 S. White Street
New Orleans, LA 70119

COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE, STATE OF LOUISIANA

Sherry Watters
LOUISIANA APPELLATE PROJECT
P. O. Box 58769-8769
New Orleans, LA 70158

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT, ALFRED RAVY

JUDGMENT VACATED AND REMANDED
June 18, 2020

TFL
This Court affirmed Defendant’s convictions for sexual battery and indecent
PAB
behavior with a juvenile under the age of thirteen by a non-unanimous eleven-to-

one jury verdict. See State v. Ravy, 2019-0144 (La. App. 4 Cir. 9/11/19), 282

So.3d 289. On remand, the Louisiana Supreme Court has ordered this Court to

conduct a new error patent review in light of Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U.S. ___,

140 S.Ct. 1390, ___ L.Ed. ___ (2020), which held that jury verdicts in state felony

cases must be unanimous. In accordance with Ramos, we vacate Defendant’s

convictions and remand for a new trial.

DISCUSSION

The facts of this case were set out in detail in this Court’s appellate opinion.1

The jury convicted Defendant by an eleven-to-one vote on both charges of sexual

battery and indecent behavior with a juvenile. Specifically, the trial court recited:

[L]et the record reflect that I have the polling slips, have shared them
with counsel of all parties. I find that the verdict is 11 to 1 and it
constitutes a good and valid verdict as to Count 1 on the charge of
sexual battery with a child under 13. … [W]ith respect to the second
verdict of indecent behavior with a child under 13 years old, I’ve
reviewed the polling slips from the jurors, I’ve given counsel for all

1
See Ravy, 2019-0144, pp. 2-8, 282 So.3d at 294-296.

1

parties an opportunity to review them, and find that the vote of the
jury was 11 to 1 and this is a good and sufficient verdict.

On appeal, this Court affirmed Defendant’s convictions, rejecting, inter alia,

Defendant’s assigned error concerning the non-unanimous verdicts.2

While Defendant’s writ application was pending before the Louisiana

Supreme Court, the United States Supreme Court decided Ramos, supra, and

overruled longstanding precedent authorizing non-unanimous jury verdicts in state

felony prosecutions. Following Ramos, the Louisiana Supreme Court remanded

Defendant’s case to this Court. 3

2
This Court’s opinion provided, in relevant part, the following:

Mr. Ravy also challenges the constitutionality of the non-unanimous jury
verdicts. Mr. Ravy contends that the non-unanimous verdicts violate the Equal
Protection Clause because the provision's enactment was motivated by an express
and overt desire to discriminate against people on account of race.

The Louisiana Supreme Court addressed the issue in State v. Bertrand, [20]08-
2215 (La. 3/17/09), 6 So. 3d 738. The Court noted “defendants argue that the use
of non-unanimous verdicts [has] an insidious racial component, allow[s] minority
viewpoints to be ignored, and is likely to chill participation by the precise groups
whose exclusion the Constitution has proscribed.” Id., 08-2215,p. 6 So. 3d at 742.
The Bertrand Court found that a non-unanimous twelve-person jury verdict was
constitutional and that La. C.Cr.P. art. 782 did not violate the Fifth, Sixth, and
Fourteenth Amendments. Id., [20]08-2215,p. 8, 6 So. 3d at 743. Therefore, Mr.
Ravy's assertion lacks merit.

Ravy, 2019-0144, p. 17, 282 So.3d at 301-302 (footnotes omitted).
3
On June 3, 2020, the Louisiana Supreme Court issued the following per curiam opinion:

Writ granted. 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, ___ L.Ed.2d ___ (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). Nothing herein
should be construed as a determination as to whether that ruling will apply

2

In See State v. Myles, 2019-0965 (La. App. 4 Cir. 4/29/20), ___ So.3d ___,

2020 WL 2069885, *1, this Court, noting that the defendant’s case was pending on

direct review, determined that Ramos applied to vacate the defendant’s conviction

for second-degree murder by a non-unanimous jury verdict.4 Similarly, we reach

the same result in the present matter. Ramos requires this Court to vacate

Defendant’s non-unanimous jury convictions for sexual battery and indecent

behavior with a juvenile.

CONCLUSION

Considering the foregoing reasons, upon remand, we hereby vacate

Defendant’s convictions and remand to the district court for further proceedings

consistent with this opinion.

JUDGMENT VACATED AND REMANDED

retroactively on state collateral review to those convictions and sentences that
were final when Ramos was decided.

State v. Ravy, 2019-01846, p. 1 (La. 6/3/20), ___ So.3d ___.

4
See also State v. Donovan, 2019-0722 (La. App. 4 Cir. 5/27/20), ___ So.3d ___, 2020 WL
2752201 and State v. Hunter, 2019-0901 (La. App. 4 Cir. 5/27/20), ___ So.3d ___, 2020 WL
2751914, where, post-Ramos, this Court vacated the respective defendants’ non-unanimous
felony jury convictions.

3