State of Louisiana v. Will Antonio Celestine

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

KA 19-42

STATE OF LOUISIANA

VERSUS

WILL ANTONIO CELESTINE

**********

APPEAL FROM THE
FOURTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF CALCASIEU, NO. 16636-15
HONORABLE G. MICHAEL CANADAY, DISTRICT JUDGE

**********

BILLY HOWARD EZELL
JUDGE

**********

Court composed of Ulysses Gene Thibodeaux, Chief Judge, Billy Howard Ezell,
and John E. Conery, Judges.

CONVICTION AND SENTENCE VACATED;
REMANDED FOR NEW TRIAL.

John Foster DeRosier, District Attorney
Karen C. McLellan, Assistant District Attorney
Fourteenth Judicial District
P. O. Box 3206
Lake Charles, LA 70602-3206
(337) 437-3400
COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE:
State of Louisiana

Mary Constance Hanes
P. O. Box 4015
New Orleans, LA 70178
(504) 866-6652
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT:
Will Antonio Celestine

Jeffrey M. Landry, Attorney General
J. Taylor Gray, Assistant Attorney General
P.O. Box 94005
Baton Rouge, LA 70804
(225) 326-6200
COUNSEL FOR OTHER APPELLEE:
Attorney General of the State of Louisiana

EZELL, Judge.

On November 17, 2017, Defendant, Will Antonio Celestine, was convicted

of attempted illegal use of a weapon, possession of a weapon by a convicted felon,

and unauthorized entry of an inhabited dwelling. Defendant was adjudicated a

fourth felony habitual offender on January 8, 2018, for the offense of attempted

illegal use of a weapon and was sentenced to life imprisonment without benefit of

probation, parole, or suspension of sentence. He was also sentenced to serve

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

sentence and to pay a $1000 fine for possession of a weapon by a convicted felon

and to serve six years at hard labor for unauthorized entry of an inhabited dwelling.

The trial court ordered Defendant’s sentences be served concurrently.

On appeal, Defendant argued his constitutional rights under the Sixth

Amendment, as applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, were

violated by the lack of unanimous jury verdicts. By votes of ten to two, Defendant

was convicted of attempted illegal use of a weapon and possession of a weapon by

a convicted felon. The jury returned a unanimous verdict for unauthorized entry of

an inhabited dwelling. This court affirmed Defendant’s convictions for attempted

illegal use of a weapon and possession of a weapon by a convicted felon, stating:

Defendant did not present his unconstitutional verdict claim to
the trial court. Moreover, the gist of his argument to this court is the
Supreme Court will eventually overrule Apodaca [v. Oregon, 406
U.S. 404, 92 S.Ct. 1628, 32 L.Ed.2d 184 (1972)]. Based on the cases
cited herein and Defendant’s failure to raise his claim in the trial
court, Defendant waived review of the issues presented in this
assignment of error.

State v. Celestine, 19-42, p. 9 (La.App. 3 Cir. 10/2/19), 280 So.3d 1179, 1185.

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

State v. Celestine, 19-1688 (La. 6/3/20), 296 So.3d 1029, and remanded the case

for further proceedings because the matter was pending on direct review when

Ramos v. Louisiana, ___ U.S. ___, 140 S.Ct. 1390 (2020), was decided, and

therefore the holding of Ramos applied.

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

unconstitutional. Accordingly, Defendant’s convictions and sentences for

attempted illegal use of a weapon and possession of a weapon by a convicted felon

via non-unanimous verdicts are vacated and the case remanded for a new trial.

CONVICTION AND SENTENCE VACATED; REMANDED FOR
NEW TRIAL.

2