State Of Louisiana v. Reginald H. Jones

Supreme Court of Louisiana
October 14, 2021
Second Deputy Clerk of Court
For the Court
The Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana
STATE OF LOUISIANA
VS.
REGINALD H. JONES
No.2021-KK-01465
_ _
_ _ _ _
I
N RE: Reginald H. Jones - Applicant Defendant; Applying For Supervisory Writ,
Parish of Orleans Criminal, Criminal District Court Number(s) 530-889, Court of
Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Number(s) 2021-K-0487;
_ _ _ _ _ _
October 14, 2021
Writ granted; relief denied. See per curiam.
SJC
JLW
JDH
JTG
WJC
JBM
PDG
10/14/2021 "See News Release 042 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents."

S
UPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
No
. 2021-KK-01465
S
TATE OF LOUISIANA
VS.
REGINALD H. JONES
O
n Supervisory Writ to the Criminal District Court, Parish of Orleans
PER CURIAM:
W
rit granted; relief denied. Applicant Reginald Jones was found guilty of
aggravated assault with a firearm, possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, and
obstruction of justice. He was sentenced to 20 years imprisonment at hard labor for
each offense. The court of appeal affirmed. State v. Jones, 18-0973 (La. App. 4 Cir.
2/27/19), 314 So.3d 1. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari, vacated
the court of appeal’s judgment, and remanded to the court of appeal for further
consideration in light of Ramos v. Louisiana , 590 U.S. –––, 140 S.Ct. 1390, 206
L.Ed.2d 583 (2020). The United States Supreme Court’s ruling reads in its entirety:
On petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana,
Fourth Circuit. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis and petition for writ of certiorari granted. Judgment vacated,
and case remanded to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit
for further consideration in light of Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U.S. –––,
140 S.Ct. 1390, 206 L.Ed.2d 583 (2020).
J
ones v. Louisiana, 141 S.Ct. 1041 (2021).
On remand, the court of appeal found that Ramos applies because the
convictions were not yet final when that decision was issued. However, the court of
appeal found the record insufficient to determine whether the verdicts were non-
unanimous. Therefore, the court of appeal remanded to the district court to examine
the jury polling slips, determine whether the verdicts were unanimous, and then issue
10/14/21

a per curiam stating the results. State v. Jones , 2018-0973 (La. 2/3/21), 314 So.3d
20.
Before the court of appeal remanded to the district court, and after the district
court denied applicant’s initial motion to set a bond, applicant filed a motion to
reconsider that denial in which applicant sought to be immediately released from
custody. According to the applicant, the ruling of the United States Supreme Court
should be construed as vacating all three convictions and sentences and finally
ending this prosecution. Therefore, there was no longer any lawful reason to
imprison him. The district court denied applicant’s motion to reconsider and the
court of appeal denied writs.
Thereafter, applicant applied to this court seeking priority attention. At the
outset, we observe that there is no Double Jeopardy prohibition against retrying
defendant on convictions that are ultimately vacated in accordance with Ramos,
contrary to the applicant’s assertion. See generally Lockhart v. Nelson, 488 U.S. 33,
38, 109 S.Ct. 285, 289, 102 L.Ed.2d 265 (1988) (“It has long been settled ... that the
Double Jeopardy Clause’s general prohibition against successive prosecutions does
not prevent the government from retrying a defendant who succeeds in getting his
first conviction set aside, through direct appeal or collateral attack, because of some
error in the proceedings leading to conviction.”); see also Victor v. Robinson, Civil
Action No. 20-3194 (E.D. La. 2021), available at 2021 WL 2482520.
We grant the application but deny relief because we do not agree that the
United States Supreme Court vacated all three convictions and sentences when it
issued the order, reproduced above, which vacated the judgment and remanded to
the court of appeal. Notably, the writ of certiorari is directed at the court of appeal
rather than the court of conviction. Furthermore, the Unite d States Supreme Court
remanded to the court of appeal to reconsider its affirmance in light of Ramos; it did
not remand to the district court for retrial. The ruling states: “Judgment vacated.” It

does not state convictions or sentences vacated. If the United States Supreme Court
intended to vacate the convictions, it could have done so more plainly. Finally, if the
United States Supreme Court had vacated the convictions, there would have been no
necessity of remanding to the court of appeal to reconsider its ruling affirming them.
Accordingly, applicant’s claim that there is no basis for his continued imprisonment
lacks merit.
Applicant also, in conjunction with his motion to reconsider, filed a motion to
recuse the prosecutor, the District Attorney, and, in fact, “the entire prosecutorial
arm of the State of Louisiana” from opposing applicant’s motion to be immediately
released. That motion to recuse arises from the fact that the prosecutor, now
employed by the Orleans Parish District Attorney, was previously associated with
the Promise of Justice Initiative, which organization represented the applicant
previously. While there may or may not be valid grounds to recuse the specific
prosecutor from further participation in this case, those grounds would not be
attributable to the District Attorney or his other assistants, see generally State v.
Edwards, 420 So.2d 663, 673 (La. 1982), and certainly do not require the statewide
recusal that the applicant seeks. Finally, the district court determined that the motion
to recuse the prosecutor from opposing applicant’s motion was moot after the court
denied the motion without hearing argument from the prosecutor. We find no error
in that determination.
Accordingly, we grant the application, deny relief, and remand to the district
court for further proceedings in accordance with the court of appeal’s instructions
previously in State v. Jones, 2018-0973 (La. 2/3/21), 314 So.3d 20.
REMANDED