State Of Louisiana v. Terrence Ty'rell Carvin

Supreme Court of Louisiana
January 26, 2021
Clerk of Court
For the Court
The Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana
STATE OF LOUISIANA
VS.
TERRENCE
TY'RELL CARVIN
No.2019-KP-02044
_ _ _ _
_ _
IN R
E: State of Louisiana - Applicant Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory Writ,
Parish of Terrebonne, 32nd Judicial District Court Number(s) 629,824, Court of
Appeal, First Circuit, Number(s) 2019 KW 1197;
_ _ _ _ _ _
January 26, 2021
Writ application granted. See per curiam.
Griffin, J., would deny.
Weimer, C. J., recused.
Crain, J., recused.
JDH
SJC
JTG
JBM
01/26/2021 “See News Release 004 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents.”

S
UPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
N
o. 19-KP-2044
S
TATE OF LOUISIANA
v.
T
ERRENCE TY’RELL CARVIN
ON
SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE THIRTY-SECOND
JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF TERREBONNE
P
ER CURIAM:
W
rit granted. The distric t court found applicant acquiesced in his counsel’s
strategic recommendation that applicant not testify in his own defense. That factual
determination is owed great deference. See, e.g. , State v. Bourque, 622 So.2d 198,
222 (La. 1993). Despite that acquiescence, however, the district court found that
defendant is entitled to a new trial because his right to testify was violated.
This court in State v. Hampton, 00 -0522 (La. 3/22/02), 818 So.2d 720,
turned to Passos -Paternina v. United States , 12 F.Supp.2d 231 (D.P.R. 1998) for
guidance in determining whether a defendant’s right to testify was violated or
waived by his silence during trial:
(
1) ab
sent extraordinary circumstances that should alert the trial
court to a conflict between attorney and client, the court should
n
ot inquire into a criminal defendant's right to testify. The cour t
s
hould assume, that a criminal defendant, by not ‘attempting to
take the stand,’ has knowingly and voluntarily waived his right;
(
2) t
he court must consider whether the peti tioner has waived his
right to testify.... [The defendant can only] rebut that
presumption ... by showing that his attorney caused him to
forego his right to testify [ (a) by alleging specific facts,
including an affidavit by the defendant's trial counsel] from
which the court could reasonably find that trial counsel ‘told [the
defendant] that he was legally forbidden to testify or in some
01/26/2021

2

similar way compelled him to remain silent ... ‘[ (b) by
demonstrating from the record] that those ‘specific factual
allegations would be credible ...’

Hampton, 2000-0522, pp. 729 –730 (quoting Passos-Paterna, 121 F.Supp. at 239 –
240).

Here, applicant failed to carry his burden under the second part above of
showing that trial counsel told him that he was legally forbidden to testify or in
some similar way compelled him to remain silent. Furthermore, the district court’s
factual determination that defendant acquiesced stands as an obstacle to affording
relief. Therefore, the district court erred in granting the application for post -
conviction relief and in ordering a new trial.
Accordingly, we grant the State’s application to vacate the district court’s
ruling, which granted relief and ordered a new trial. We remand to the district court
to consider the applicant’s remaining claims of ineffective assistance, upon which
the district court has not yet ruled.
VACATED AND REMANDED