2020KW1347 Nonprecedential Writ denied Processed

State Of Louisiana v. Andrew Harvey, Jr.

Louisiana Court of Appeal, First Circuit · Filed February 18, 2021

Authorities cited

Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.

  • 296 So. 3d 1051 not in our corpus

Opinion text

STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

STATE OF LOUISIANA NO. 2020 KW 1347

VERSUS

ANDREW HARVEY, JR.
FEB 1 8 2021

In Re: Andrew Harvey, Jr., applying for supervisory writs,

21st Judicial District Court, Parish of Tangipahoa,
No. 801966.

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

WRIT DENIED. The district court did not err by sustaining
the State' s procedural objections and dismissing relator' s

application for postconviction relief. Furthermore, in Ramos v.
Louisiana, _ U. S._, , 140 S. Ct. 1390, 1397, 206 L. Ed. 2d 583
2020), the United States Supreme Court held, " the Sixth

Amendment' s unanimity requirement applies to state and federal
criminal trials equally." However, the Supreme Court declined

to address whether its holding applied retroactively to cases on
collateral review. The Court specifically observed that the

question of "[ w] hether the right to jury unanimity applies to

cases on collateral review is a question for a future case where
the parties will have a chance to brief the issue and we will

benefit from their adversarial presentation." See Ramos,

U. S. at , 140 S. Ct. at 1407. The question of whether Ramos

must apply retroactively to cases on federal collateral review

is currently pending before the Court. Edwards v. Vannoy,
U. S. r 140 S. Ct. 2737, 206 L. Ed. 2d 917 ( 2020). Moreover, the
Louisiana Supreme Court has declined to definitively rule on

whether Ramos should apply on collateral review in state court

proceedings pending a decision in Edwards. See State v. Gipson,

2019- 01815 ( La. 6/ 3/ 20), 296 So. 3d 1051, 1052 ( Johnson, C. J.,

dissenting to point out that she disagreed
majority' s with the

decision to defer ruling until the United States Supreme Court

mandates action). Therefore, we are constrained to deny relief

at this time. However, our decision does not preclude relator

from reurging the issue in the district court if warranted by
the decision of the higher court( s).

VGW
JEW
WRC

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

DEPUTY CLERK OF COURT
FOR THE COURT