State of Louisiana v. Kwalan D. Rubin

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

19-837

STATE OF LOUISIANA

VERSUS

KWALAN D. RUBIN

**********

APPEAL FROM THE
FOURTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF CALCASIEU, NO. 12870-16
HONORABLE ROBERT LANE WYATT, DISTRICT JUDGE

**********

SHANNON J. GREMILLION
JUDGE

**********

Court composed of Shannon J. Gremillion, Phyllis M. Keaty, and Jonathan W. Perry,
Judges.

CONVICTIONS AND SENTENCES VACATED;
REMANDED FOR A NEW TRIAL.

Annette Roach
Louisiana Appellate Project
P. O. Box 1747
Lake Charles, LA 70602-1747
(337) 436-2900
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT:
Kwalan D. Rubin

John F. DeRosier
Fourteenth Judicial District Attorney
Charles Robinson
Ross Murray
Karen C. McLellan
Elizabeth B. Hollins
Assistant District Attorneys
901 Lakeshore Drive, Suite 800
Lake Charles, LA 70601
(337) 437-3400
COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE:
State of Louisiana

GREMILLION, Judge.

Defendant, Kwalan D. Rubin, was charged by an amended bill of indictment

with five offenses. 1 Almost two years later, the State filed an amended bill of

information charging Defendant with two counts of armed robbery with a firearm,

violations of La.R.S. 14:64 and 14:64.3. By a jury vote of eleven to one, Defendant

was found guilty as charged. On each count, the trial court sentenced him to twenty

years in the Louisiana Department of Corrections without the benefit of probation,

parole, or suspension of sentence. He is before this court appealing his convictions.

FACTS

In the early morning hours of March 5, 2016, three armed individuals entered

the Cash Magic Casino in Iowa, Louisiana, and took money from the cashier desk

while security guard, Calvin Sylvester, and cashier, Jimmie Marlene Savoie, were

working. Cash close to the estimated amount stolen was found in the trunk of

Defendant’s car and blood found on the cash was determined by DNA testing to be

Defendant’s blood. Items believed to have been used in the robbery, including the

guns, were found either inside Defendant’s vehicle or near it.

ERRORS PATENT

In accordance with La.Code Crim.P. art. 920, all appeals are reviewed for

errors patent on the face of the record. After reviewing the record, there is an error

patent raised and discussed in Defendant’s assignments of errors relating to the

requirement of a unanimous jury verdict. This error, which requires Defendant’s

convictions and sentences to be set aside and the case remanded for a new trial, will

be the only one discussed as it renders the remaining assignments of error moot.

1
An original charging instrument is not contained in the record. The amended bill of
indictment bears the same filing date that the grand jury returned the true bill, June 16, 2016, and
this is the first minute entry appearing in the record.

UNANIMOUS JURY VERDICT

Defendant contends that the verdicts in his case must be set aside because they

were not returned by a unanimous jury in violation of the Equal Protection Clause

of the Fourteenth Amendment and the right to a trial by jury set forth in the Sixth

Amendment of the United States Constitution. The Supreme Court recently ruled to

this effect, overruling a Louisiana Supreme Court ruling that upheld a non-

unanimous verdict. Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U.S. ___, ___ S.Ct. ___ (2020) (Slip

Op.)2 A detailed analysis is unnecessary; 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 under the Sixth

Amendment to the Constitution, and said prohibition applies to the states through

the Fourteenth Amendment. (Slip Op. at p. 26; see also concurrences by Sotomayor,

Kavanaugh, and Thomas, JJ.)3

Further, the opinion recognizes, without explicitly stating, that its ruling will

apply to cases pending on direct review. (Slip op. at 22-23.) Justice Kavanaugh’s

concurrence states this explicitly. (Slip op. at 15-17.)4 Such review is in keeping

with this state’s jurisprudence. State v. Ruiz, 06-1755 (La. 4/11/07), 955 So.2d 81.

As the current case is still in the process of direct review, Ramos applies and,

therefore, requires that Defendant’s convictions via non-unanimous verdict be

reversed. This case is remanded for a new trial. Defendant’s remaining assignments

of error, all which challenge his convictions, are rendered moot by the necessity of

vacating Defendant’s convictions and sentences.

2
The opinion appears in the Westlaw database at 2020 WL 1906545.
3
Each concurrence has its own sequence of page numbers.
4
See footnote 2; Judge Kavanaugh’s concurrence is the second one published.
2

DECREE

Defendant’s convictions and sentences for armed robbery with a firearm are

vacated, and the case remanded for a new trial.

CONVICTIONS AND SENTENCES VACATED;
REMANDED FOR A NEW TRIAL.

3