State Of Louisiana v. Karl Justin Nixon

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST CIRCUIT

2020 KA 0975

STATE OF LOUISIANA

VERSUS

KARL JUSTIN NIXON

Judgment Rendered: SUN 0 4 2021

On Appeal from the Thirty -Second Judicial District Court
In and for the Parish of Terrebonne
State of Louisiana
Docket No. 765, 020

Honorable David W. Arceneaux, Judge Presiding

Joseph L. Waitz, Jr. Counsel for Appellee
District Attorney State of Louisiana
Ellen Daigle Doskey
Assistant District Attorney
Houma, LA

Cynthia K. Meyer Counsel for Defendant/ Appellant
Louisiana Appellate Project Karl Justin Nixon
New Orleans, LA

Karl Justin Nixon Defendant/ Appellant
Louisiana State Prison In Proper Person
Angola, LA

BEFORE: GUIDRY, McCLENDON, AND LANIER, JJ.

McCLENDON, 7.

Defendant, Karl Justin Nixon, was charged by bill of information with

attempted second degree murder, a violation of LSA- R. S. 14: 30. 1 and LSA- R. S.

14: 27. Defendant entered a plea of not guilty and, following a jury trial, was found

guilty by a ten -to -two verdict of the responsive offense of attempted

manslaughter, a violation of LSA- R. S. 14: 31 and LSA- R. S. 14: 27. The State filed

a habitual offender bill of information.' At a hearing on the matter, defendant was

adjudicated a fourth -or -subsequent felony habitual offender and sentenced to life

imprisonment at hard labor without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of

sentence. Defendant now appeals, designating one counseled assignment of

error.2 We set aside defendant's conviction, habitual offender adjudication, and

sentence. We remand for a new trial.

In his sole assignment of error, defendant argues that the district court

erred in accepting a ten -to -two non -unanimous jury verdict.3 He asserts his verdict

is invalid because a unanimous verdict is required under the Sixth and Fourteenth

Amendments of the United States Constitution.

In Ramos v. Louisiana, _ U. S. _, _, 140 S. Ct. 1390, 1397, 206 L. Ed. 2d

583 ( 2020), the United States Supreme Court overruled Apodaca v. Oregon, 4

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,

1 Defendant has prior convictions for possession of cocaine, simple arson, aggravated assault with
a firearm ( domestic violence), and aggravated battery.

2 Defendant filed a pro se brief, addressing the same non -unanimous verdict issue. Defendant
also argues in his pro se brief ineffective assistance of counsel because defense counsel, according
to defendant, declined the State' s plea offer in court without the presence of defendant. Defendant
cites to a minute entry to support his claim. The record does not establish any conversations
defendant and defense counsel may have had regarding the plea offer. Accordingly, this allegation
would normally be reserved for an application for post -conviction relief, subject to the requirements
of LSA- C. Cr. P. arts. 924 through 930. 9. This assignment of error, however, is also moot because
the remedy for a finding of ineffective assistance of counsel is the grant of a new trial. See State
v. Jackson, 16- 1100 ( La. 5/ 1/ 18), 248 So. 3d 1279 ( per curiam).

3 In his motion to quash the habitual offender bill of information, one of the arguments asserted
by defendant was that his guilty verdict was non -unanimous.

4
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

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 are still

pending on direct appeal. Ramos, _ U. S. at _, 140 S. Ct. at 1406.

Accordingly, we set aside defendant' s conviction, habitual offender

adjudication, and sentence, and remand the case for a new trial.

CONVICTION, HABITUAL OFFENDER ADJUDICATION, AND
SENTENCE SET ASIDE; REMANDED FOR NEW TRIAL.

3