State Of Louisiana v. Andrew Hunt

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST CIRCUIT

STATE OF LOUISIANA

VERSUS

ANDREW HUNT

DATE OF JUDGMENT. JUN 0 4 2021

v ON APPEAL FROM THE TWENTY-SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
NUMBER 18 CR2 137625, DIVISION D, PARISH OF WASHINGTON
STATE OF LOUISIANA

HONORABLE PETER J. GARCIA, JUDGE

Warren L. Montgomery Counsel for Appellee
District Attorney State of Louisiana
David A. Weilbaecher
Matthew Caplan
Assistant District Attorneys
Covington, Louisiana

Gwendolyn K. Brown Counsel for Defendant -Appellant
Baton Rouge, Louisiana Andrew Hunt

BEFORE: WHIPPLE, C.J., WELCH, AND CHUTZ, JJ.

Disposition: CONVICTIONS AND SENTENCES VACATED; REMANDED.

CHUTZ, J.

The defendant, Andrew Fonz Hunt, was charged by an amended grand jury
indictment with aggravated incest ( count one), a violation of La. R.S. 14: 78. 1,' and

molestation of a juvenile ( count two), a violation of La. R.S. 14: 81. 2. He pled not

guilty on both counts. Following a trial by jury, the defendant was found guilty as

charged on both counts. On count one, the trial court sentenced the defendant to

forty years imprisonment at hard labor, with twenty- five years to be served without

benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence. On count two, the trial

court sentenced the defendant to twenty years imprisonment at hard labor, with

five years to be served without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of

sentence.
The trial court ordered the sentences to run concurrently. The defendant

now appeals, assigning as error the non -unanimous verdict on each count. For the

following reasons, we vacate the convictions and sentences and remand this

matter.

NON -UNANIMOUS JURY VERDICTS

In his sole assignment of error, the defendant argues that the convictions and

sentences must be reversed and a new trial ordered, as the verdicts were not

unanimous. The defendant notes that although the verdicts were legal at the time

that they were returned, while the instant case was pending on direct review, the

United States Supreme Court held in Ramos v. Louisiana, U. S. , 140

S. Ct. 1390, 206 L.Ed.2d 583 ( 2020), that Louisiana' s system of accepting non -

unanimous verdicts was unconstitutional. Acknowledging that the issue was not

preserved for appellate review by contemporaneous objection, the defendant

1 On count one of the amended indictment, it is alleged that the defendant committed the offense
of aggravated incest " on or between June 13, 2009 and June 12, 2014." Effective June 12, 2014,
the Louisiana Legislature repealed La. R.S. 14: 78. 1, and the provisions of that statute were
incorporated into La. R.S 14: 89. 1 ( aggravated crime against nature). See 2014 La. Acts, No.
177, §§ 1 and 2 and 2014 La. Acts, No. 602, § 4; see also 2014 La. Acts, No. 599, § 1 ( providing
that neither Act 177 nor Act 602 could be construed to alleviate any person convicted of

further argues that the matter should nevertheless be recognized as error patent on
the face of the record.' In its appellee brief, the State concedes that the verdicts

were not unanimous and that the convictions should be set aside pursuant to

Ramos.

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

Apodaca v. Oregon,3 406 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
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 were still pending on direct appeal. Ramos, 140 S. Ct. at 1406; see

also State v. Cohen, 2019- 00949 ( La. 1/ 27/ 21), So. 3d , 2021 WL 266645,

at * 1( per curiam) ( wherein the court observed that the defendant' s appeal " was

pending on direct review when Ramos v. Louisiana was decided, and therefore

the holding of Ramos applies").

In the instant case, a polling of the jurors indicated the defendant was

convicted on each count by a vote of ten to two. Because the verdicts were non -

unanimous, we find merit in the defendant' s sole assignment of error and set aside

violating La. R.S. 14: 78. 1 ( aggravated incest) from the consequences imposed by law resulting
from that conviction) and La. R. S. 14: 89. 1( E).

z The jury' s verdict is part of the pleadings and proceedings that this court routinely reviews for
errors pursuant to La. Code Crim. P. art. 920( 2). See State v. Keys, 328 So. 2d 154, 157 ( La.
1976); State v. Ruffen, 2018- 1280 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 2/ 24/ 21) ( unpublished), 2021 WL 717288,
at *1; see also State v. Hills, 2020- 0392 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 11/ 12/ 20) ( unpublished), 2020 WL
6624967, at * 1 n.2 ( noting " this court automatically reviews the record for patent errors under
La. Code Crim. P. art. 920, including non -unanimous jury claims not preserved in the trial court
below"). Moreover, the Louisiana Supreme Court has directed this court to consider claims of
non -unanimous jury verdicts as part of our error patent review. See State v. Cole, 2019- 01733
La. 10/ 6/ 20), 302 So. 3d 524 ( per curiam).

3 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 in criminal cases.

3

and vacate his convictions and sentences and remand this case to the trial court for

further proceedings, consistent with the opinion and mandate of the United States
Supreme Court.

CONVICTIONS AND SENTENCES VACATED; AND REMANDED.

4