State of Louisiana v. Tyrance Chancellor

STATE OF LOUISIANA * NO. 2023-KA-0576

VERSUS *
COURT OF APPEAL
TYRANCE CHANCELLOR *
FOURTH CIRCUIT
*
STATE OF LOUISIANA
*******

APPEAL FROM
CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT ORLEANS PARISH
NO. 531-116, SECTION “I”
Honorable Raymond C. Bigelow, Judge
******
Judge Rachael D. Johnson
******
(Court composed of Judge Sandra Cabrina Jenkins, Judge Dale N. Atkins, Judge
Rachael D. Johnson)

Christopher A. Aberle
LOUISIANA APPELLATE PROJECT
P.O. Box 8583
Mandeville, LA 70470-8583

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT

Jason Rogers Williams
DISTRICT ATTORNEY
ORLEANS PARISH
619 S. White Street
New Orleans, LA 70119

Brad Scott
Chief of Appeals
Orleans Parish Assistant District Attorney
619 S. White Street
New Orleans, LA 70119

Thomas Frederick
ORLEANS PARISH DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
619 South White Street
New Orleans, LA 70119-5045

COUNSEL FOR STATE/APPELLEE

VACATED AND REMANDED
February 26, 2024

RDJ Appellant Tyrance Chancellor (“Defendant”) appeals his conviction of
SCJ
felony manslaughter and eighty-year sentence. Defendant argues that this Court
DNA
must vacate his conviction and remand the matter for a new trial because the

eleven-to-one jury verdict was unconstitutional. For the following reasons, we

vacate the district court’s conviction and remand the matter for further

proceedings.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On July 20, 2016, Defendant and J.T.1 contacted their girlfriends Starkesha

Lee (“Ms. Lee”) and Asia Thomas (“Ms. Thomas”) to meet later that night. Ms.

Lee and Ms. Thomas told Defendant and J.T. that they would contact them when

they arrived back to Ms. Lee’s home in New Orleans. Ms. Lee and Ms. Thomas

never contacted Defendant and J.T. about returning to their home. Around one or

two a.m., Defendant and J.T. arrived at Ms. Lee’s house. Defendant and J.T.

knocked on the door and began to throw small pebbles at the upstairs window in an

attempt to get their attention. When Defendant and J.T. did not receive a response,

1 Pursuant to the requirements of confidentiality of juvenile proceedings as set forth in La. Ch.C.

art. 412, the juvenile, who was fifteen at the time of the charged offenses, is referred to by his
initials only, J.T.

1

they forced their way into the apartment by pushing open the front door. J.T.

carried a gun and Defendant carried a stick when they entered Ms. Lee’s home.

Once Defendant and J.T. reached the top of the stairs, a man named Hasahn

Shawl (“Mr. Shawl”), appeared from Ms. Lee’s bedroom and confronted them. Mr.

Shawl was carrying a gun when he confronted Defendant and J.T. A scuffle ensued

between all three men which involved a struggle for possession of one of the guns.

Eventually, a gun discharged and killed Mr. Shawl. Defendant proceeded to ask

J.T. “why he shot him” and later told Ms. Lee that J.T. “didn’t have to shoot the

man.” After hearing the gunshot, Ms. Lee fled outside and called the police. Prior

to the police’s arrival, Ms. Lee re-entered her home and found Mr. Shawl’s body

“at the bottom of the stairs.” After the shooting but before the police arrived,

Defendant possessed a gun. Soon thereafter, Defendant walked away and when he

returned he no longer had a gun.

When New Orleans Police Detective Tindell Murdock (“Det. Murdock”)

arrived at the scene of the crime, he observed that the front door of the residence

was “kicked in” and Mr. Shawl was deceased. Det. Murdock proceeded to take

statements from Ms. Lee, Ms. Thomas, and Defendant.2 After reviewing the

statements and the physical evidence present, Det. Murdock secured arrest

warrants for Defendant and J.T.

The State ultimately tried Defendant on two charges: Second Degree Murder

pursuant to La. R.S. 14:30.1 and Obstruction of Justice pursuant to La. R.S.

14:130.1. On January 30, 2019, the jury returned an eleven-to-one guilty verdict of

manslaughter on the second degree murder charge and a not guilty verdict on the

2 A statement was not taken from J.T. because he was a juvenile.

2

obstruction of justice charge. On May 23, 2019, the district court determined that

the defendant was a second felony offender in light of a 2012 possession of

cocaine conviction. This resulted in the Defendant receiving a sentence of “eighty

years in the custody of the Department of Corrections without the benefit of

probation or suspension of sentence.” On March 31, 2021, Defendant filed a pro se

post-conviction application (“PCA”) seeking an out-of-time appeal. Defendant told

his counsel of his desire to appeal but his counsel abandoned him following his

sentencing. His counsel did not move for appeal nor did counsel appoint Defendant

appellate counsel. Pro bono counsel subsequently enrolled on behalf of Defendant

and they filed a supplemental PCA. On March 28, 2023, the district court granted

Defendant’s PCA, his motion for appeal, and the appointment of appellate counsel.

On appeal, Defendant raised one assignment of error. Defendant argues that

the non-unanimous jury verdict convicting him of manslaughter violated his

constitutional due process rights under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments of

the constitution.

JURISDICTION

The State does not contest the validity of Defendant’s argument, but instead

argues that this Court does not have appellate jurisdiction. The State argues that the

out-of-time appeal was improperly granted because its initially filed procedural

objections were never adjudicated. “If procedural objections are timely filed, no

answer on the merits of the claim may be ordered until such objections have been

considered and rulings thereon have become final.” La. C.Cr.P. art. 927(A). In

State v. Puderer, the Louisiana Supreme Court vacated the appellate jurisdiction of

this Court because the trial court improperly granted an out-of-time appeal when

3

the State initially filed procedural objections that were never adjudicated. 22-0623,

p. 25 (La. App. 4 Cir. 3/10/23); 359 So.3d 551, writ granted, decision vacated, 23-

00624 (La. 11/8/23), and writ granted, decision vacated, 23-00494 (La. 11/8/23).

The Supreme Court cited Judge Lobrano’s dissent as the reason for vacating the

out-of-time appeal. Judge Lobrano argued that unless La. C.Cr.P. arts. 930.4(G)3

and 930.8(D)4 waivers were effected, then the out-of-time appeal is improperly

granted because the State’s procedural objections were never adjudicated.

Purderer, 22-0623, p. 25, 359 So.3d at 570 (Lobrano, J. dissenting).

In the interest of justice and judicial economy, the State filed the waiver

necessary to effectuate the waiver provisions La. C.Cr.P. arts. 930.4(G) and

930.8(D) to the district court on November 21, 2023. This Court shall deem these

waivers effective in order to support appellate jurisdiction in this case.

DISCUSSION

Defendant argues that his conviction must be vacated because the jury’s

non-unanimous guilty verdict of manslaughter violated his constitutional due

process rights under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States

Constitution. On April 20, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court in Ramos v. Louisiana

held that the right to jury trial pursuant to the Sixth Amendment, as incorporated

against the States under the Fourteenth Amendment, requires a unanimous verdict

to convict a defendant of a serious offense. Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U.S. ___, ___,

3 “Notwithstanding any provision of this Title to the contrary, the state may affirmatively waive

any procedural objection pursuant to this Article. Such waiver shall be express and in writing and
filed by the state into the district court record.” La. C.Cr.P. art. 930.4(G).
4 “Notwithstanding any provision of this Title to the contrary, the state may affirmatively waive

any objection to the timeliness under Paragraph A of this Article of the application for post
conviction relief filed by the petitioner. Such waiver shall be express and in writing and filed by
the state into the district court record.” La. C.Cr.P. art. 930.8(D).

4

140 S. Ct. 1390, 1394-97, 206 L. Ed. 2d 583 (2020). “[I]f the Sixth Amendment’s

right to a jury trial requires a unanimous verdict to support a conviction in federal

court, it requires no less in state court.” Id. at 1397. Any persons whose conviction

were pending on direct appeal or not yet final when Ramos was decided, will have

the holding of Ramos applied. State v. Curry, 19-01723 (La. 6/3/20), 296 So.3d

1030 (per curiam) (citing Griffith v. Kentucky, 479 U.S. 314, 328 (1987)). Under

Louisiana law, a defendant’s challenge to his non-unanimous conviction pursuant

to Ramos is deemed an error patent. State v. Monroe, 20-00335 (La. 6/3/20), 296

So.3d 1062. Defendant’s conviction was still on direct appeal when Ramos was

decided. His verdict was a non-unanimous guilty verdict of manslaughter, which

violates the Ramos unanimous verdict requirement to convict a defendant of a

serious offense. Ramos, 140 S. Ct. at 1394-97. Accordingly, Defendant’s

manslaughter conviction and eighty-year sentence is vacated.

DECREE

For the foregoing reasons, we vacate the Defendant’s convictions and the

matter is to be remanded for a new trial.

VACATED AND REMANDED

5