State Of Louisiana v. Kevin Williams

STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST CIRCUIT

2020 KA 1209

STATE OF LOUISIANA

VERSUS

KEVIN MAURICE WILLIAMS

Judgment Rendered: UCT 0 4 2021

APPEALED FROM THE NINETEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
IN AND FOR THE PARISH OF EAST BATON ROUGE
STATE OF LOUISIANA
DOCKET NUMBER 04- 18- 0780

HONORABLE BEAU HIGGINBOTHAM, JUDGE

Hillar C. Moore, III Attorneys for Appellee
District Attorney State of Louisiana
Dylan C. Alge
Assistant District Attorney
Baton Rouge, Louisiana

Meghan Harwell Bitoun Attorney for Defendant/ Appellant
New Orleans, Louisiana Kevin Maurice Williams

cDONALD, J.

The defendant, Kevin Maurice Williams, was charged by bill of information
with two counts of armed robbery with the use of a firearm ( counts one and two),
violations of La. R.S. 14: 64 and La. R.S. 14: 64. 3.
He pled not guilty on both
counts.'
Following a trial by jury, the defendant was found guilty as charged on
both counts.
The defendant was sentenced to seventy- five years imprisonment at

hard labor on each count, to be served without the benefit of parole, probation, or

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

hard labor on each count, to be served without the benefit of parole, probation, or

suspension of sentence and consecutive to the seventy- five-year sentences. The

trial court ordered the sentences on counts one and two to run consecutively. The

defendant now appeals, assigning as error the non-unanimous verdict on each

count.
For the following reasons, we set aside the convictions and sentences.

In his sole assignment of error, the defendant notes that the verdicts were
not unanimous in this case. The defendant contends that in light of the United

States Supreme Court' s holding in Ramos v. Louisiana, U.S. , 140 S. Ct.

1390, 206 L.Ed.2d 583 ( 2020), his convictions should be reversed and the imposed

sentences should be vacated. In its appellee brief, the State concedes that the

verdicts were not unanimous and that the defendant is entitled to a new trial on

both counts pursuant to Ramos.

In Ramos, 140 S. Ct. at 1397, the United States Supreme Court overruled
Apodaca v. Oregon,' 406 U.S. 404, 92 S. Ct. 1628, 32 L.Ed.2d 184 ( 1972), and

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

2

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 are still pending on direct appeal. Ramos, 140 S. Ct. at 1406; see also

State v. Cohen, 2019- 00949 ( La. 1/ 27/ 21), 315 So.3d 202, 203 ( 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, following the announcement of the verdicts, the trial

court conducted an oral polling of the jurors that indicates that the defendant was

convicted on each count by a vote of eleven -to -one. Accordingly, as the verdicts

were non -unanimous, we must set aside the convictions and sentences and remand

the case to the trial court for further proceedings, consistent with the opinion and
mandate of the Supreme Court of the United States. Thus, we find merit in the

sole assignment of error.

CONVICTIONS AND SENTENCES VACATED, CASE REMANDED.

3