State of Louisiana v. Tevin Tevonte Jenkins

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

20-2

STATE OF LOUISIANA

VERSUS

TEVIN TEVONTE JENKINS

**********

APPEAL FROM THE
TWENTY-SEVENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF ST. LANDRY, NO. 17-K-3670-D
HONORABLE D. JASON MECHE, DISTRICT JUDGE

**********

CANDYCE G. PERRET
JUDGE

**********

Court composed of Sylvia R. Cooks, D. Kent Savoie, and Candyce G. Perret, Judges.

CONVICTION AND SENTENCE VACATED, REMANDED.

Earl B. Taylor
Attorney at Law
Post Office Drawer 1149
Opelousas, LA 70571
(337) 948-3007
COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE:
State of Louisiana

Kathleen E. Ryan
Morrow, Morrow, Ryan
Post Office Drawer 1787
Opelousas, LA 70571-1787
(337) 948-4483
COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE:
State of Louisiana

Jeffrey M. Landry
Attorney General
Post Office Box 94005
Baton Rouge, LA 70804
(225) 326-6200
COUNSEL FOR OTHER APPELLEE:
Attorney General for the State of Louisiana

Douglas Lee Harville
Louisiana Appellate Project
Post Office Box 52988
Shreveport, LA 71135
(318) 222-1700
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT:
Tevin Tevonte Jenkins

Tevin Tevonte Jenkins
Louisiana State Prison
Camp C Bear 2
Angola, LA 70712
IN PROPER PERSON

PERRET, Judge.

Defendant, Tevin Tevonte Jenkins, appeals his conviction and sentence for

second degree murder. For the reasons that follow, we vacate Defendant’s non-

unanimous conviction and sentence and remand for a new trial on the charge of

second degree murder.

FACTS:

On October 31, 2017, a grand jury indicted Defendant and Tyrone Trayune

Ned for the August 9, 2016 second degree murder of Rodney Joseph Savoy, Jr., in

violation of La.R.S. 14:30.1. Defendant filed a motion to declare La.Code Crim.P.

art. 782(A) unconstitutional on August 9, 2019; the trial court found the statute

constitutional on August 15, 2019.

A jury convicted Defendant as charged by a ten-to-two verdict on August 30,

2019. Thereafter, the trial court sentenced Defendant to life imprisonment at hard

labor without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence on October 30,

2019. This appeal followed. 1

On appeal, Defendant alleges the following two assignments of error: (1) the

jury instruction allowing for a non-unanimous verdict and the jury’s 10-2 verdict of

guilt violated his Sixth Amendment rights, and (2) there was sufficient evidence to

establish that he acted in sudden passion or heat of blood immediately caused by

provocation sufficient to deprive an average person of his self-control and cool

reflection, such that no reasonable juror could have found beyond a reasonable doubt

that he committed second degree murder.

1
Although briefing deadlines for both the Defendant and the Louisiana Attorney General
have been suspended because of the COVID-19 pandemic, we find that the Ramos v. Louisiana,
590 U.S. ___, ___ S.Ct. ___ (2020) ruling controls the decision in this case regardless of any
arguments that might be stated in any brief Defendant or the State might file.

DISCUSSION:

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, we find that there

is one error patent that is raised and discussed in Defendant’s assignment of error

number one. Specifically, Defendant contends that the version of La.Code Crim.P.

art. 782 in effect at the time of this murder was unconstitutional because it allowed

for a non-unanimous jury verdict.

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

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

590 U.S. ___, ___ S.Ct. ___ (2020).2 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 and, because Defendant’s case is pending on direct review, the Supreme

Court’s decision in Ramos applies here. See Schriro v. Summerlin, 542 U.S. 348,

351, 124 S.Ct. 2519, 2522, (2004) (observing that “[w]hen a decision of [the United

States Supreme Court] results in a ‘new rule,’ that rule applies to all criminal cases

still pending on direct review”). Accordingly, because the Ramos holding applies in

this case and invalidates the Defendant’s conviction by a non-unanimous jury verdict,

any discussion of the Defendant’s other assignment of error is rendered moot.

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s conviction and sentence are vacated

and the case is remanded to the trial court for a new trial on the charge of second

degree murder.

2
The Westlaw citation is 2020 WL 1906545.
2

CONVICTION AND SENTENCE VACATED, REMANDED.

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

3