State Of Louisiana v. Andrew Harvey, Jr.
State Of Louisiana v. Andrew Harvey, Jr., No. 2020KW1347 (La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. Feb. 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