State of Louisiana v. Elvin Bryant Jinks, Jr. -Aka- Elvin Jinks

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

18-733

STATE OF LOUISIANA

VERSUS

ELVIN BRYANT JINKS, JR.
-AKA- ELVIN JINKS

*************

ON REMAND

*************

APPEAL FROM THE
THIRTY-EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF CAMERON, NO. 158217
HONORABLE PENELOPE RICHARD, DISTRICT JUDGE

**********

CANDYCE G. PERRET
JUDGE

**********

Court composed of Sylvia R. Cooks, Billy Howard Ezell, and Candyce G. Perret,
Judges.

CONVICTION AND SENTENCE VACATED;
REMANDED FOR NEW TRIAL.

Sherry Watters
Louisiana Appellate Project
Post Office Box 58769
New Orleans, LA 70158-8769
(504) 723-0284
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT:
Elvin Bryant Jinks, Jr.

Jennifer Jones
Assistant District Attorney
W. Thomas Barrett, III
Post Office Drawer 280
Cameron, LA 70631
(337) 775-5713
COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE:
State of Louisiana

PERRET, Judge.

Defendant, Elvin Bryant Jinks, Jr., was charged with one count of

aggravated crime against nature, a violation of La.R.S. 14:89.1, wherein the victim,

his stepdaughter, was under the age of thirteen at the time of the offense, which

occurred between the spring of 2016, and the fall of 2016. Defendant pled not

guilty. Following a jury trial on April 25, 2018, Defendant was found guilty by a

ten-to-two jury verdict and sentenced to the minimum sentence of twenty-five

years at hard labor without the benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of

sentence, with credit for time served. Defendant appealed alleging that the trial

court erred in proceeding with sentencing without the proper statutory delay, that

the trial court erred in prohibiting testimony regarding the victim’s credibility, and

that a new trial should be granted because a non-unanimous verdict does not satisfy

due process. On appeal, we affirmed Defendant’s conviction and sentence, but

remanded for the Uniform Commitment Order to be corrected. State v. Jinks, 18-

733 (La.App. 3 Cir. 5/1/19) (unpublished opinion).

Defendant then timely filed a writ application with the Louisiana Supreme

Court on May 21, 2019. One of his assignments of error alleged the

unconstitutionality of his ten-to-two jury verdict.

On June 3, 2020, the Louisiana Supreme Court granted Defendant’s writ

application on that issue and remanded the case to this court for further review in

light of the United States Supreme Court’s ruling in Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U.S.

___, 140 S.Ct. 1390 (2020). State v. Jinks, 19-818 (La. 6/3/20), ___ So.3d ___

(per curiam). On remand, this court now vacates Defendant’s conviction and

sentence and remands this matter to the trial court for a new trial.

DISCUSSION:

On April 20, 2020, the United States Supreme Court held Louisiana’s

provision for a non-unanimous jury verdict was unconstitutional. Ramos v.

Louisiana, 590 U.S. ___, 140 S.Ct. 1390 (2020). Although the concurring justices

did not join in all parts of the majority opinion, the Supreme Court unambiguously

determined that non-unanimous verdicts are not permitted by the Sixth

Amendment to the Constitution. The prohibition applies to the states through the

Fourteenth Amendment. Id.; see also concurrences by Sotomayor, Kavanaugh,

and Thomas, JJ. Furthermore, the decision applies to cases pending on direct

review.

In the current case, Defendant was found guilty by a ten-to-two jury verdict.

Specifically, after the trial court announced the jury verdict at trial, it noted, “I’m

going to have the clerk record the verdict, 10 out of 12 agreed on the verdict . . . .”

Additionally, the Louisiana Supreme Court noted in its remand that Defendant’s

case was still in the process of direct review at the time of the Ramos decision.

Thus, Ramos applies and requires that Defendant’s conviction by a non-unanimous

jury be reversed.

DECREE:

Defendant’s conviction and sentence are reversed, and this case is remanded

to the trial court for a new trial pursuant to Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U.S. ___, 140

S.Ct. 1390 (2020).

CONVICTION AND SENTENCE VACATED; REMANDED FOR
NEW TRIAL.

This opinion is NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION.
Uniform Rules—Courts of Appeal, Rule 2-16.3.

2