State Of Louisiana v. Anthony Christopher Dearmas

STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST CIRCUIT

2019 KA 1609

STATE OF LOUISIANA

VERSUS

ANTHONY CHRISTOPHER DEARMAS

Judgment Rendered: " JUL* 2 4 2020

APPEALED FROM THE
TWENTY- SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
IN AND FOR THE PARISH OF ST. TAMMANY
STATE OF LOUISIANA
DOCKET NUMBER 590, 763, DIVISION H
HONORABLE ALAN A. ZAUNBRECHER, JUDGE

Warren L. Montgomery Attorneys for Appellee
District Attorney State of Louisiana
And
J. Bryant Clark, Jr.
Assistant District Attorney
Covington, Louisiana

Lieu T. Vo Clark Attorney for Defendant/Appellant
Mandeville, Louisiana Anthony Christopher Dearmas

BEFORE: McDONALD, THERIOT, AND CHUTZ, JJ.

McDONALD, I

Defendant, Anthony Christopher Dearmas, was charged by bill of indictment

with first degree murder, a violation of La. R.S. 14: 30. He pled not guilty and not

guilty by reason of insanity. The case proceeded to a trial by jury, and defendant

filed a written motion asking that a unanimous jury be required for a conviction

before the case was sent to the jury for deliberations, which was denied by the trial

court. After the trial, defendant was found guilty as charged by a vote of eleven of

the twelve jurors. Defendant again raised the issue of a requirement for a unanimous

jury in a motion for new trial, which was denied by the trial court.

The trial court imposed a term of life imprisonment at hard labor, to be served

without the benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence. Defendant now

appeals assigning as error the trial court' s determinations as to the constitutionality

of his conviction by a non -unanimous jury verdict and the retroactivity of the recent

amendments to La. Const. art. I, §17( A) and La. Code Crim. P. art. 782( A).

However, in the recent decision of Ramos v. Louisiana, _ U.S. _, 140

S. Ct. 1390, 1397, _ L.Ed.2d _ ( 2020), the United States Supreme Court overruled

Apodaca v. Oregon' 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 of the United States Constitution, requires a

unanimous verdict to convict a defendant of a serious offense. The Ramos Court

further indicated that its ruling may require retrial of those defendants convicted of

felonies by non -unanimous verdicts whose cases are still pending on direct appeal.

Ramos, 140 S. Ct. at 1406. See also Schriro v. Summerlin, 542 U.S. 348, 351, 124

S. Ct. 2519, 2522, 159 L.Ed. 2d 442 ( 2004) ( observing that when a decision of the

1 Oregon' s non -unanimous jury verdict provision of its state constitution was challenged in
Apodaca v. Oregon, 406 U. S. 404, 412- 13, 92 S. Ct. 1628, 1634, 32 L.Ed.2d 184 ( 1972).
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.
0

United States Supreme Court results in a new rule, that rule applies to all criminal

cases still pending on direct review); State v. Myles, 19- 0965 ( La. App. 4 Cir.

4/ 29/ 20), 2020 WL 2069885, at * 1.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, defendant' s conviction and sentence are set aside, and the case

is remanded for a new trial. We pretermit consideration of the other issue raised on

appeal regarding the retroactivity of the recent amendments to La. Const. art. I,

17( A) and La. Code Crim. P. art. 782( A).

CONVICTION AND SENTENCE SET ASIDE; REMANDED FOR
NEW TRIAL.

3