State of Louisiana v. Robert Marquez Wilson

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

19-318

STATE OF LOUISIANA

VERSUS

ROBERT MARQUEZ WILSON

**********

ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE
APPEAL FROM THE
THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF EVANGELINE, NO. 112303-F
HONORABLE CHUCK RANDALL WEST, DISTRICT JUDGE

**********

PHYLLIS M. KEATY
JUDGE

**********

Court composed of Ulysses Gene Thibodeaux, Chief Judge, Phyllis M. Keaty, and
Candyce G. Perret, Judges.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

Paula Corley Marx
Louisiana Appellate Project
Post Office Box 82389
Lafayette, Louisiana 70598-2389
(337) 991-9757
Counsel for Defendant/Appellant:

Robert Marquez Wilson

Trent Brignac
District Attorney
Post Office Drawer 780
Ville Platte, Louisiana 70586
(337) 363-3438
Counsel for Appellee:
State of Louisiana

Jeffrey M. Landry
Attorney General
Colin Clark
J. Taylor Gray
Assistant Attorney General
Post Office Box 94005
Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70804
(225) 326-6200
Counsel For Appellee:
State of Louisiana

KEATY, Judge.

Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence. This court reversed on

hearsay grounds, vacated his sentence, and remanded the matter to the trial court

for a new trial. State v. Wilson, 19-318 (La.App. 3 Cir. 12/18/19), 286 So.3d 637.

The State subsequently sought review by the supreme court, which remanded to

this court for review in light of Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U.S. ___, 140 S.Ct. 1390

(2020), regarding the requirement of unanimous jury verdicts. State v. Wilson, 20-

128 (La. 6/3/20), ___ So.3d ___. On remand from the supreme court and pursuant

to the following reasons along with the reasons previously set forth in Wilson, 286

So.3d 637, Defendant’s conviction is reversed, his sentence is vacated, and this

matter is remanded to the trial court for a new trial.

FACTS, PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND, AND DISCUSSION

This matter involves a shooting that occurred in Ville Platte on April 23,

2017. Prior to the shooting, there was an altercation between Defendant, Robert

Marquez Wilson, and Santiago Thomas. After the shooting, Santiago found a

bullet that had pierced the back of his car. A bystander, Kathy Weston, was also

shot and killed. On April 11, 2018, Defendant was indicted for second degree

murder, a violation of La.R.S. 14:30.1. The State charged Defendant with other

offenses by bill of information although the trial court ordered these to be severed

from the murder charge on October 1, 2018. On that same day, a jury was selected

and trial commenced one day later. On October 5, 2018, the jury returned a

responsive verdict finding Defendant guilty of manslaughter, a violation of La.R.S.

14:31. On January 17, 2019, Defendant was sentenced to twenty-five years at hard

labor. Defendant appealed and asserted the following assignments of error:

1. The trial court erred in its denial of Robert Marquez Wilson’s
right to confront and cross-examine two witnesses for the State. The
court abused its discretion in weighing the out of court statements for

credibility as a test to carve out an exception to the confrontation
clause.

2. The State failed to prove Robert Marquez Wilson fired the shot
that resulted in the death of Kathy Weston, thus the State failed to
prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Robert Marquez Wilson was
guilty of manslaughter.

3. A. Louisiana’s constitution and statutory provisions allowing a
conviction with a verdict of less than all twelve jurors violate[s] the
Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution. The 1898
Constitution of Louisiana was written “to establish the supremacy of
the white race in this State.” As racism was a substantial or
motivating factor behind the enactment of the laws allowing non-
unanimous jury verdicts, those provisions violate the Equal Protection
Clause.

B. Considering the sixth amendment right to a jury trial applies
in state criminal courts, the right to a unanimous jury verdict should
also apply in a state criminal court trial.

On review, this court reversed, vacated Defendant’s sentence, and remanded

the matter to the trial court for a new trial. Wilson, 286 So.3d 637. In January

2020, the State sought review by the supreme court, which remanded to this court

for review in light of Ramos, 140 S.Ct. 1390, which recently held that unanimous

verdicts are required by the federal Constitution. Wilson, ___ So.3d ___.

Defendant raised the issue on appeal, but this court pretermitted any analysis of it

due to the reversal on hearsay grounds.

In the original appeal, the State argued that Defendant had failed to properly

raise the issue in the trial court. We find that the merits of the issue must be

reviewed because the supreme court ruled that even if it was not preserved for

review, the issue must be considered as an error patent. Wilson, ___ So.3d ___. In

the current record, neither the transcript nor the minutes enumerate the results of

the jury poll. However, the polling slips reveal that the verdict was 10-2.

We find that a detailed analysis is unnecessary. Although the concurring

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

2

unambiguously determined that non-unanimous verdicts are not permissible under

the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution and said prohibition applies to the states

through the Fourteenth Amendment. Ramos, 140 S.Ct. at 1396-97, 1408; see also

concurrences by Sotomayor, Kavanaugh, and Thomas, JJ. As previously noted,

the verdicts in the present case were not unanimous. Therefore, and in addition to

the reasons previously set forth in Wilson, 286 So.3d 637, Defendant’s conviction

is reversed, his sentence is vacated, and this matter is remanded to the trial court

for a new trial.

DISPOSITION

For the reasons assigned above and previously set forth in State v. Wilson,

19-318 (La.App. 3 Cir. 12/18/19), 286 So.3d 637, the conviction of Robert

Marquez Wilson is reversed, his sentence is vacated, and this matter is remanded to

the trial court for a new trial.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

3