State Of Louisiana v. Craig Anthony Marquez

STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST CIRCUIT

NUMBER 2020 KA 0987

VV D_/t_ STATE OF LOUISIANA

VERSUS

CRAIG ANTHONY MARQUEZ

Judgment Rendered:
JUN 0 4 2021

Appealed from the
Twenty -Second Judicial District Court
In and for the Parish of St. Tammany
State of Louisiana
Docket Number 589074

Honorable Alan A. Zaunbrecher, Judge Presiding

Warren L. Montgomery Counsel for Appellee
District Attorney State of Louisiana
Matthew Caplan

Assistant District Attorney
Covington, Louisiana

Bertha M. Hillman Counsel for Defendant/Appellant
Covington, Louisiana Craig Anthony Marquez

BEFORE: GUIDRY, McCLENDON, AND LANIER, JJ.

GUIDRY, J.

The defendant, Craig Anthony Marquez, was charged by grand jury

indictment with first degree rape of a victim under the age of thirteen, a violation

of La. R. S. 14: 42( A)(4). He pled not guilty. After a trial by jury, he was found

guilty as charged.' The trial court denied the defendant' s motions for post -verdict

judgment of acquittal and for new trial. The trial court sentenced the defendant to

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

suspension of sentence. The defendant now appeals,
challenging the

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

sentence imposed thereafter. For the following reasons, we set aside the

conviction and sentence and remand for a new trial.

CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE NON -UNANIMOUS JURY VERDICT

In assignment of error number one, the defendant notes that the verdict in

this case was less than unanimous. He cites Ramos v. Louisiana, U.S. ,

140 S. Ct. 1390, 1397, 206 L.Ed.2d 583 ( 2020), and argues that the trial court erred

in accepting the verdict. He further argues, in his second assignment of error, that

his sentence is illegal because it is based on a non -unanimous verdict. In its

appellee brief, the State agrees that the conviction and sentence should be set aside

and that the defendant is entitled to a new trial.

A written jury poll was conducted in this matter, and the polling results were

sealed. See La. C. Cr.P. art. 812. The polling slips and the trial transcript show

that the jury voted 10 -to -2 in reaching a verdict of guilty as charged.

I Prior to trial, the defendant filed a motion to require a unanimous jury verdict, which was
denied by the trial court.

2

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

Apodaca v. Oregon,' 406 U.S. 4041 92 S. Ct. 1628, 32 L.Ed.2d 184 ( 1972). The

Ramos Court 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 the 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, where the defendant' s conviction was not final when Ramos was decided,

the holding of Ramos applies. State v. Cohen, 19- 00949, p. 2 ( La. 1/ 27/ 21),

So. 3d , 2021 WL 266645, at * I ( per curiam) ( citing Griffith v. Kentucky, 479

U.S. 314, 328, 107 S. Ct. 708, 716, 93 L.Ed.2d 649 ( 1987)). See also Schriro v.

Summerlin, 542 U.S. 348, 351, 124 S. Ct. 2519, 2522, 159 L.Ed.2d 442 ( 2004)

observing that "[ w] hen a decision of [the United States Supreme] Court results in

a ` new rule,'
that rule applies to all criminal cases still pending on direct review");

State v. Warren, 19- 1410, p. 4 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 7/ 24/ 20), 2020 WL 4250839, at

2.

Accordingly, we find merit in the assignments of error. The conviction and

sentence must be vacated, and this case is remanded to the district court.

CONVICTION AND SENTENCE SET ASIDE; REMANDED TO THE
TRIAL COURT FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS CONSISTENT WITH
THIS OPINION.

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 in criminal cases.

3