State Of Louisiana v. Michael Lee Jackson

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

STATE OF LOUISIANA
01
COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST CIRCUIT

2019 KA 0067R

STATE OF LOUISIANA

VERSUS

MICHAEL LEE JACKSON

Judgment rendered:
SEP 18 2020

On Appeal from the
Nineteenth Judicial District Court
In and for the Parish of East Baton Rouge
State of Louisiana
No. 09- 16- 0008, Sec. II

The Honorable Richard D. Anderson, Judge Presiding

Hillar C. Moore, III Attorneys for Appellee,
District Attorney State of Louisiana
Stacy L. Wright
Assistant District Attorney
Baton Rouge, Louisiana

Lieu Vo Clark Attorney for Defendant/Appellant
Louisiana Appellate Project Michael Lee Jackson
Mandeville, Louisiana

BEFORE: McCLENDON, WELCH, AND HOLDRIDGE, JJ.

HOLDRIDGE, J.

Defendant, Michael Lee Jackson, was charged by bill of information with

video voyeurism, a violation of La. R. S. 14: 283. He pled not guilty. After a trial

by jury, defendant was found guilty as charged by a non -unanimous jury verdict.

The trial court adjudicated defendant as a fourth -felony habitual offender and

imposed a term of 80 years imprisonment at hard labor. Defendant' s conviction

and sentence are vacated, and we remand to the trial court for a new trial.

This court affirmed defendant' s conviction and sentence on appeal. State v.

Jackson, 2019- 0067 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 9/ 27/ 19), 2019 WL 4739241, at * 4

unpublished). However, the Louisiana Supreme Court granted defendant' s writ

application and remanded the case to this court " for further proceedings in light of

Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U.S. , 140 S. Ct. 1390, 206 L.Ed.2d 583 ( 2020)."

State v. Jackson, 2019- 02023 ( La. 6/ 12/ 20), So. 3d , 2020 WL 3424906.

In the event the " non -unanimous jury claim was not preserved for review in the

trial court," the Supreme Court ordered this court to " consider the issue as part of

an error patent review." Id.; see La. Code Crim. P. art. 920( 2).

Defendant did not object to the verdict or challenge the constitutionality of

the verdict in the trial court below, however, on error patent review, the minutes

reveal the jury verdict was eleven -to -one.'

In Ramos, 140 S. Ct. at 1397, the United States Supreme Court overruled

Apodaca v. Oregon, 2 406 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, incorporated against the States by way of the Fourteenth Amendment

Defendant did raise the claim in his original appeal.

2 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
nine -to -three jury verdicts.
2

of the United States Constitution, requires a unanimous verdict to convict a

defendant of a serious offense. The Ramos Court further noted that its ruling

applied to those defendants convicted of felonies by non -unanimous verdicts

whose cases are still pending on direct appeal. Ramos, 140 S. Ct. at 1406. Thus,

given the Ramos Court' s declaration of the unconstitutionality of non -unanimous

jury verdicts, defendant' s conviction and sentence based on a non -unanimous jury

verdict must be vacated.

CONCLUSION

For these reasons, we vacate defendant' s conviction and sentence and

remand to the trial court for a new trial.

CONVICTION AND SENTENCE VACATED; REMANDED FOR
NEW TRIAL.

C