Donald A. Logan Versus Tim Hooper, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary

DONALD A. LOGAN NO. 24-KH-463

VERSUS FIFTH CIRCUIT

TIM HOOPER, WARDEN, LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL
STATE PENITENTIARY
STATE OF LOUISIANA

October 10, 2024

Linda Wiseman
First Deputy Clerk

IN RE DONALD A. LOGAN

APPLYING FOR SUPERVISORY WRIT FROM THE TWENTY-FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT,
PARISH OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF LOUISIANA, DIRECTED TO THE HONORABLE NANCY A. MILLER,
DIVISION "I", NUMBER 03-4506

Panel composed of Judges Susan M. Chehardy,
Marc E. Johnson, and Stephen J. Windhorst

WRIT DENIED

In 2006 relator, Donald A. Logan, was convicted by a non-unanimous jury
of second-degree murder. The trial court sentenced relator to life imprisonment at
hard labor without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence. This
Court upheld his conviction and sentence on appeal. State v. Logan, 07-739 (La.
App. 5 Cir. 5/27/08), 986 So.2d 772, writ denied, 08-1525 (La. 3/13/09), 5 So.3d
117, cert. denied, 558 U.S. 856, 130 S.Ct. 142, 175 L.Ed.2d 93 (2009).

On July 16, 2024, relator filed a Motion to Set Aside Sentence. However,
relator’s motion constitutes an application for post-conviction relief (APCR), as set
out in La. C.Cr.P. art. 924.1 Under La. C.Cr.P. art. 930.4, relator’s application is
repetitive, as it raises the same issues addressed in a previous APCR. See Logan v.
Vannoy, 21-282 (La. App. 5 Cir. 6/21/21) (unpublished writ disposition).
Moreover, under La. C.Cr.P. art. 930.8(A), relator’s application is untimely, as
“[n]o application for post-conviction relief, including applications
which seek an out-of-time appeal, shall be considered if it is filed more than two
years after the judgment of conviction and sentence has become final[,]” and none
of the exceptions enumerated in Article 930.8(A) apply here.

Even if relator’s APCR were not repetitive and untimely, his argument is
without merit. Relator contends that his sentence was imposed after a verdict that
was obtained from an improper number of jurors.

1
La. C.Cr.P. art. 924 provides that an application for post-conviction relief “means a petition
filed by a person in custody after sentence following conviction for the commission of an offense
seeking to have the conviction and sentence set aside.”

24-KH-463

In Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U.S. --, 140 S.Ct. 1390, 206 L.Ed.2d 583
(2020), the United States Supreme Court held that a defendant who is tried for a
serious crime has a right to a unanimous jury verdict. Ramos, which abrogated
Apodaca v. Oregon, 406 U.S. 404, 92 S.Ct. 1628, 32 L.Ed.2d 184 (1972),
explicitly applies only to cases pending on direct appeal and to future cases. 140
S.Ct. at 1407. The Supreme Court further held in Edwards v. Vannoy, 593 U.S.
255, 141 S.Ct. 1547, 1554 (2021), that the jury-unanimity rule in Ramos does not
apply retroactively on federal collateral review. The Edwards Court notes,
however, that states remained free to retroactively apply the jury-unanimity rule as
a matter of state law in state post-conviction proceedings if they chose to do so.
141 S.Ct. at 1559, n.6 (citing Danforth v. Minnesota, 552 U.S. 264, 282, 128 S.Ct.
1029, 169 L.Ed.2d 859 (2008)).

In 2022, the Louisiana Supreme Court closed the door left open by Edwards
when it held that Ramos does not apply retroactively in Louisiana on collateral
review:

[W]e find that, though the Sixth Amendment violation at issue
is a serious one, finality and reliance interests, combined with
the burden placed upon the administration of justice, informed
by the actions of the citizens of this state and the legislature,
outweigh retroactive application of the Ramos rule. Therefore,
the new rule of criminal procedure announced in Ramos which
provides for unanimity in jury verdicts is not retroactive in
Louisiana.

State v. Reddick, 21-1893 (La. 10/21/22), 351 So.3d 273, 283.

Relator was convicted in 2006. At the time of his conviction, a non-
unanimous jury verdict was not unconstitutional under Apodaca v. Oregon, 406
U.S. 404, 92 S.Ct. 1628, 32 L.Ed.2d 184 (1972), and his conviction became final
long before Ramos. Reddick states that Ramos is not retroactive in state post-
conviction proceedings. The trial court did not err in denying relator’s motion to
set aside sentence. Accordingly, relator’s writ application is denied.

Gretna, Louisiana, this 10th day of October, 2024.

SMC
MEJ
SJW

2

SUSAN M. CHEHARDY CURTIS B. PURSELL

CHIEF JUDGE CLERK OF COURT

SUSAN S. BUCHHOLZ
FREDERICKA H. WICKER
CHIEF DEPUTY CLERK
JUDE G. GRAVOIS
MARC E. JOHNSON
STEPHEN J. WINDHORST LINDA M. WISEMAN
JOHN J. MOLAISON, JR.
FIRST DEPUTY CLERK
SCOTT U. SCHLEGEL
TIMOTHY S. MARCEL FIFTH CIRCUIT
MELISSA C. LEDET
JUDGES 101 DERBIGNY STREET (70053)
DIRECTOR OF CENTRAL STAFF
POST OFFICE BOX 489
GRETNA, LOUISIANA 70054 (504) 376-1400

(504) 376-1498 FAX
www.fifthcircuit.org

NOTICE OF DISPOSITION CERTIFICATE OF DELIVERY
I CERTIFY THAT A COPY OF THE DISPOSITION IN THE FOREGOING MATTER HAS BEEN
TRANSMITTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH UNIFORM RULES - COURT OF APPEAL, RULE 4-6 THIS
DAY 10/10/2024 TO THE TRIAL JUDGE, THE TRIAL COURT CLERK OF COURT, AND AT LEAST ONE OF
THE COUNSEL OF RECORD FOR EACH PARTY, AND TO EACH PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY
COUNSEL, AS LISTED BELOW:

24-KH-463
E-NOTIFIED
24th Judicial District Court (Clerk)
Honorable Nancy A. Miller (DISTRICT JUDGE)
Thomas J. Butler (Respondent)

MAILED
Donald A. Logan #350072 (Relator)
Louisiana State Penitentiary
Angola, LA 70712