State of Louisiana v. Edwin Paul Frinks

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

18-899

STATE OF LOUISIANA

VERSUS

EDWIN PAUL FRINKS

**********

ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF RAPIDES, NO. 334,569
HONORABLE WILLIAM GREGORY BEARD, DISTRICT JUDGE

**********

JOHN D. SAUNDERS
JUDGE

**********

Court composed of Ulysses Gene Thibodeaux, Chief Judge, John D. Saunders, and
Phyllis M. Keaty, Judges.

CONVICTION AND SENTENCE VACATED;
REMANDED FOR NEW TRIAL.

Phillip Terrell
District Attorney
Ninth Judicial District Court
Cheryl A. Carter
Assistant District Attorney
P. O. Drawer 7358
Alexandria, LA 71306
(318) 473-6650
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE:
State of Louisiana

Annette Fuller Roach
Louisiana Appellate Project
P. O. Box 1747
Lake Charles, LA 70602-1747
(337) 436-2900
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT:
Edwin Paul Frinks

SAUNDERS, Judge.

On October 24, 2017, Defendant, Edwin Paul Frinks, was charged by bill of

information with the attempted second-degree murder of Travis Darnell James, Jr.,

in violation of La.R.S. 14:27 and 14:30.1. On June 20, 2018, an 11-1 jury found

Defendant guilty of the lesser included offense of attempted manslaughter, in

violation of La.R.S. 14:27 and 14:31. Defendant raised five assignments of error

through trial counsel: (1) that there was insufficient evidence to support Defendant’s

conviction, (2) that the State failed to prove the homicide was not justifiable, (3) the

trial court gave an erroneous jury instruction regarding intent, (4) the trial court erred

by allowing two witnesses to discuss statements made to them by the victim, and (5)

that his sentence was excessive. In a supplemental pro se brief, Defendant raised

two assignments of error alleging that his conviction was unconstitutional because

he was convicted by a less than unanimous jury.

On June 12, 2019, this court affirmed Defendant’s conviction and sentence.

See State v. Frinks, 18-899 (La.App. 3 Cir. 6/12/19), 274 So.3d 635. Regarding

Defendant’s assertion that his conviction was unconstitutional due to the 11-1

verdict, this court held:

At the time of Defendant’s crime, La.Code Crim.P. art.
782(A) stated that cases “in which punishment is necessarily
confinement at hard labor shall be tried by a jury composed of twelve
jurors, ten of whom must concur to render a verdict.” Defendant
contends that, under Hunter v. Underwood, 471 U.S. 222, 105 S.Ct.
1916, 85 L.Ed.2d 222 (1985), La.Code Crim.P. art. 782 was
unconstitutional and “violated equal protection because it had the effect
of disenfranchising a disproportionate percentage of blacks” and
because the law arose out of a clearly racially charged constitutional
convention. No Louisiana appellate court has ever accepted this
argument; furthermore, non-unanimous jury verdicts were held
constitutional by the Supreme Court in Apodaca v. Oregon, 406 U.S.
404, 92 S.Ct. 1628, 32 L.Ed.2d 184 (1972). Additionally, in affirming
the constitutionality of La.Code Crim.P. art. 782, the supreme court
specifically stated:

We note that defendant’s last argument—that the
use of non-unanimous verdicts have an insidious racial
component, allow minority viewpoints to be ignored, and
is likely to chill participation by the precise groups whose
exclusion the Constitution has proscribed-was also argued
in Apodaca. .With regard to this assignment of error, a
majority, rather than a plurality, of the Court determined
that the argument was without merit.

State v. Bertrand, 08-2215, 08-2311, pp. 7-8 (La. 3/17/09), 6 So.3d 738,
743.

In light of Apodaca and Bertrand, Defendant’s argument
regarding the constitutionality of La.Code Crim.P. art. 782 and
Defendant’s eleven-to-one guilty verdict lacks merit.

Frinks, 274 So.3d at 652.

On June 3, 2020, the supreme court granted Defendant’s writ application in

State v. Frinks, 19-1145 (La. 6/3/20), ___ So.3d ___, and 19-1217 (La. 6/3/20), ___

So.3d ___, and remanded the case for further proceedings because the matter was

pending on direct review while Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U.S. ___, 140 S.Ct. 1390

(2020), was decided. As such, the holding of Ramos applied to the case.

In Ramos, the Supreme Court found non-unanimous jury verdicts

unconstitutional. Therefore, we find that Defendant’s assertion that his conviction

was unconstitutional, based on Ramos, has merit. Accordingly, Defendant’s

conviction and sentence for attempted manslaughter via a non-unanimous verdict is

vacated and the case is remanded for a new trial.

CONVICTION AND SENTENCE VACATED; REMANDED FOR

NEW TRIAL.

2