State Of Louisiana v. Timothy Paul Pugh

STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST CIRCUIT

NO. 2020 KA 0985
G
y
STATE OF LOUISIANA

VERSUS

TIMOTHY PAUL PUGH

Judgment Rendered:
FEB 1 9 2021

Appealed from the 19th Judicial District Court
In and for the Parish of East Baton Rouge
State of Louisiana
Suit No. 05- 16- 0672

The Honorable Bonnie Jackson, Judge Presiding

xBe r dc

Hillar C. Moore, III Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellee
District Attorney State of Louisiana
Allison Miller Rutzen

Assistant District Attorney
Baton Rouge, Louisiana

Holli Herrle-Castillo Counsel for Defendant/Appellant
Marrero, Louisiana Timothy Paul Pugh

BEFORE: GUIDRY, McCLENDON, AND LANIER, JJ.

LANIER, J.

The defendant, Timothy Paul Pugh, was charged by bill of information with

armed robbery ( with use of a firearm), violations of La. R.S. 14: 64 and La. R.S.

14: 64. 3 ( count 1); aggravated criminal damage to property, a violation of La. R.S.

14: 55 ( count 2); and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, a violation of La.

1
R.S. 14: 95. 1 ( count 3). The defendant pled not guilty to all counts. Trial

commenced, the jury became deadlocked, and the trial court declared a mistrial.

At his second jury trial, the defendant was found guilty on all charges by an

eleven -to -ane verdict on each count. On count 1, the defendant was sentenced to

fifteen years imprisonment at hard labor without the benefit of parole, probation, or

suspension of sentence, plus the enhanced penalty of five years imprisonment at

hard labor without the benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence, to be

served consecutive to the fifteen -year sentence. On count 2, the defendant was

sentenced to five years imprisonment at hard labor. This sentence on count 2 was

ordered to run consecutive to count 1 sentence, but concurrent to the sentence on

count 3. On count 3, the defendant was sentenced to ten years imprisonment at

hard labor without the benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence. This

sentence was ordered to run concurrently with the other sentences. The defendant

now appeals, designating two assignments of error. In his first assignment of error,

the defendant challenges his convictions by non -unanimous jury verdicts. In his

second assignment of error, the defendant argues the trial court erred in denying

his motion for new trial based on an improperly constituted jury venire.

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,' 406

I
The defendant had also been charged with illegal use of weapons or dangerous
instrumentalities, a violation of La. R.S. 14: 94, but prior to trial, the State dismissed this charge.

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

2

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

Accordingly, all of the defendant's convictions and sentences are set aside,
and the case is remanded for a new trial The other issue raised on appeal is
rendered moot.

CONVICTIONS AND SENTENCES SET ASIDE; REMANDED FOR NEW
TRIAL.

with Apodaca, upheld Louisiana's then -existing constitutional and statutory provisions allowing
nine -to -three jury verdicts.

M