State of Louisiana Versus Stanley Dorsey

STATE OF LOUISIANA NO. 25-KH-378

VERSUS FIFTH CIRCUIT

STANLEY DORSEY COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF LOUISIANA

September 17, 2025

Linda Tran
First Deputy Clerk

IN RE STANLEY DORSEY

APPLYING FOR SUPERVISORY WRIT FROM THE TWENTY-FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT,
PARISH OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF LOUISIANA, DIRECTED TO THE HONORABLE DONALD A.
ROWAN, JR., DIVISION "L", NUMBER 04-7986

Panel composed of Judges Susan M. Chehardy,
Stephen J. Windhorst, and John J. Molaison, Jr.

WRIT DENIED

Relator, Stanley Dorsey, seeks review of the district court’s June 23, 2025

ruling denying his motion to declare unconstitutional as written and applied La.

Const., Art. I, §17(A) and La. C.Cr.P. art. 782(A). For the following reasons, we

deny the writ application.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On April 26, 2005, Mr. Dorsey was found guilty by a non-unanimous jury of

distribution of cocaine. The district court sentenced him on May 18, 2005, to

twenty years imprisonment at hard labor, with the first two years to be served

without the benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence. Subsequently,

the State filed a multiple bill of information, alleging Mr. Dorsey to be a fourth-

felony offender. On August 21, 2006, Mr. Dorsey was adjudicated a fourth-felony

offender. Consequently, the district court vacated his original sentence, and

imposed an enhanced sentence of thirty-five years imprisonment at hard labor

25-KH-378

without the benefit of probation or suspension of sentence. Mr. Dorsey’s

conviction and sentence were affirmed by this Court on May 29, 2007. State v.

Dorsey, 07-67 (La. App. 5 Cir. 5/29/07), 960 So.2d 1127. This Court ordered the

district court to amend the commitment to show the habitual offender sentence was

to be served without the benefit of parole for the first two years and without

probation or suspension of sentence for the entire term. Id. at 1132. Mr. Dorsey

did not file a writ application with the Louisiana Supreme Court.

On June 16, 2025, Mr. Dorsey filed a “Motion to Declare Unconstitutional

as Written and Applied Louisiana Constitution Article I, Section 17(A) and

Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure Article 782(A)” with the district court. The

district court denied relief on June 23, 2025, finding that Mr. Dorsey’s motion

contesting the non-unanimous jury verdict in his case was “in fact an application

for post-conviction relief.” In doing so, the district court found that Mr. Dorsey’s

claim was untimely under La. C.Cr.P. art. 930.8(A), and successive, citing La.

C.Cr.P. art. 930.4, barring repetitive applications.

Mr. Dorsey filed the instant writ application requesting review on August

20, 2025.1 In his application, Mr. Dorsey complains that the district court

erroneously treated his constitutional challenge to La. Const., Art. I, § 17 and La.

C.Cr.P. art. 782, which, at the time of his conviction and sentencing in 2005,

allowed for a non-unanimous jury verdict,2 as a post-conviction claim rather than a

civil claim.

1
On August 25, 2025, the Clerk of Court for this Court mailed a letter to the Louisiana Attorney
General’s Office stating that “[t]he constitutionality of Louisiana Constitution Article I, Section 17(A)
and La. C.Cr.P. art. 782(A)” was raised in Mr. Dorsey’s writ application, giving the AG’s office an
opportunity to brief this issue by September 4, 2025. To date, the AG’s office has not done so. To the
extent Mr. Dorsey requests that this Court order a response from the Attorney General, there appears to be
no statutory requirement for a response to be filed.
2
La. C.Cr.P. art. 782 concerns the number of jurors comprising a jury and the number of jurors
needed to concur for a verdict. Non-unanimous jury verdicts were previously allowed under both La.
Const., Art. I, § 17 and La. C.Cr.P. art. 782, and in Mr. Dorsey’s case where the charged offense occurred
in 2004 and his trial occurred in 2005. Both La. Const., Art. I, § 17 and La. C.Cr.P. art. 782(A) currently
provide, in pertinent part, that a case for an offense committed prior to January 1, 2019, in which the
punishment is necessarily confinement at hard labor shall be tried before a jury of twelve persons, ten of
whom must concur to render a verdict, and that a case for an offense committed on or after January 1,
2

DISCUSSION

The Louisiana Supreme Court has recognized that courts should “look

through the caption of the pleadings in order to ascertain their substance and to do

substantial justice.” See State v. Moses, 05-787 (La. App. 5 Cir. 5/9/06), 932 So.2d

701, 706, n.3, writ denied, 06-2171 (La. 4/5/07), 954 So.2d 140. Despite Mr.

Dorsey’s characterization of his motion as a civil action based on the alleged

unconstitutionality of Louisiana’s non-unanimous jury statutes at the time of his

2005 trial, for all practical and procedural purposes, Mr. Dorsey is, in essence,

challenging the validity of his conviction. Thus, we find the district court correctly

found Mr. Dorsey’s claim to be in the nature of post-conviction relief as set forth

in La. C.Cr.P. art. 924, which explains that an APCR “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.” Consequently, we

further find that Mr. Dorsey’s filing of his application for post-conviction relief is

untimely pursuant to La. C.Cr.P. art. 930.8, which provides that an APCR must be

filed within two years of the judgment of conviction and sentence becoming final.

Moreover, to the extent that Mr. Dorsey’s claim rests on an October 11,

2018 Eleventh Judicial District Court ruling by Judge Stephen Beasley in State v.

Melvin Cartez Maxie, No. 13-CR-72522 (La. 11th Jud. Dist., Oct. 11, 2018),

declaring La. Const., Art. I, § 17 and La. C.Cr.P. art. 782 (which at that time

allowed convictions based on non-unanimous jury verdicts) unconstitutional, this

decision does not qualify as an exception to the time limitations under La. C.Cr.P.

art. 930.8(A)(3). Specifically, Maxie is not “a final ruling of an appellate court

establishing a theretofore unknown interpretation of constitutional law and

petitioner establishes that this interpretation is retroactively applicable to his case,

2019, in which the punishment is necessarily confinement at hard labor shall be tried before a jury of
twelve persons, all of whom must concur to render a verdict.
3

and the petition is filed within one year of the finality of such ruling.” See La.

C.Cr.P. art. 930.8(A)(3). Furthermore, the Louisiana Supreme Court found that the

declaration of unconstitutionality in Maxie was erroneous. See State v. Hodge, 19-

568 (La. 11/19/19), 286 So.3d 1023, 1028. Additionally, in State v. Reddick, 21-

1893 (La. 10/21/22), 351 So.3d 273, 283, the Louisiana Supreme Court held that

“the new rule of criminal procedure announced in Ramos [v. Louisiana, 590 U.S.

83, 140 S.Ct. 1390, 206 L.Ed.2d 583 (2020)] that requires unanimity in jury

verdicts is not retroactive on state collateral review in Louisiana.”

For the foregoing reasons, Mr. Dorsey’s writ application is denied.

Gretna, Louisiana, this 17th day of September, 2025.

SMC
SJW
JJM

4

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. TRAN
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 09/17/2025 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:

25-KH-378
E-NOTIFIED
24th Judicial District Court (Clerk)
Honorable Donald A. Rowan, Jr. (DISTRICT JUDGE)
Grant L. Willis (Respondent) Thomas J. Butler (Respondent)

MAILED
Stanley Dorsey #420512 (Relator)
Rayburn Correctional Center
27268 Highway 21
Angie, LA 70426