State of Louisiana v. Damien Terrell Miller

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

20-66

STATE OF LOUISIANA

VERSUS

DAMIEN TERRELL MILLER

**********
APPEAL FROM THE
FOURTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF CALCASIEU, NO. 8415-16
HONORABLE DAVID ALEXANDER RITCHIE, DISTRICT JUDGE

**********

ULYSSES GENE THIBODEAUX
CHIEF JUDGE

**********

Court composed of Ulysses Gene Thibodeaux, Chief Judge, Candyce G. Perret,
and Jonathan W. Perry, Judges.

CONVICTION AND SENTENCE VACATED;
REMANDED FOR NEW TRIAL

John Foster DeRosier
District Attorney – 14th Judicial District
P. O. Box 3206
Lake Charles, LA 70602-3206
Telephone: (337) 437-3400
COUNSEL FOR:
Plaintiff/Appellee – State of Louisiana

John E. Turner
Ross M. Murray
Assistant District Attorney – 14th Judicial District
901 Lakeshore Drive – Suite #800
Lake Charles, LA 70601
Telephone: (337) 437-3400
COUNSEL FOR:
Plaintiff/Appellee – State of Louisiana

Chad M. Ikerd
Louisiana Appellate Project
P. O. Box 2125
Lafayette, LA 70502
Telephone: (337) 366-8994
COUNSEL FOR:
Defendant/Appellant – Damien Terrell Miller

THIBODEAUX, Chief Judge.

Defendant, Damien Terrell Miller, was charged by bill of information

with armed robbery, armed robbery with a firearm, and possession of a firearm by

a convicted felon in violation of La.R.S. 14:64, La.R.S. 14:64.3, and La.R.S.

14:95.1. A jury found Mr. Miller guilty of armed robbery by a vote of eleven to

one. Mr. Miller was sentenced to thirty-five years in the custody of the Louisiana

Department of Corrections, to be served without the benefit of probation, parole, or

suspension of sentence. Mr. Miller now appeals his conviction.

I.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On January 3, 2016, a juvenile victim, C.C., was robbed of $1,300 he

had received from a recent insurance settlement. After playing dice with some

friends, C.C. went to sit in the driver seat of his truck along with some friends. A

man believed to be Mr. Miller opened the driver’s door and demanded to know the

location of the money. Another man opened the passenger door, and a third

opened a rear door. Each of the robbers had their faces covered and were armed

with what appeared to be guns. C.C. wrestled briefly with his assailant before

being struck in the head by the assailant’s weapon. C.C. became frightened and

told the robbers the location of the money. Once the money was obtained, the

three robbers ran away with two others from the scene. Over the course of the

investigation, two of the robbers admitted their role in the offense and identified

Mr. Miller as a participant and the assailant. They testified that Mr. Miller had

supplied them with guns that they later realized were BB guns, and that Mr.

Miller’s gun looked larger than a BB gun. They each received $200 for their role

in the robbery.

II.

LAW AND DISCUSSION

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, we find that

there is an error patent, which is raised and discussed in Mr. Miller’s assignment of

error relating to the requirement of a unanimous jury verdict.

UNANIMOUS JURY VERDICT

In his second assignment of error, Mr. Miller contends that the guilty

verdict against him was improper because it was not unanimous and is, therefore,

constitutionally invalid. A detailed analysis of this issue is unnecessary. The

Supreme Court recently held in Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U.S.___, 140 S.Ct. 1390

(2020), that Louisiana’s provision for non-unanimous jury verdicts was

unconstitutional. 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 permissible under the Sixth Amendment to the

Constitution. The prohibition applies to the states through the Fourteenth

Amendment. Id. at 1396-97, 1408; see also concurrences by Sotomayor,

Kavanaugh, and Thomas, J.J. Furthermore, the opinion recognizes that its ruling

will apply to cases pending on direct review.

As this case is still in the process of direct review, Ramos applies.

Mr. Miller’s verdict was reached by a jury vote of eleven to one and is, therefore,

2

non-unanimous. Thus, Mr. Miller’s conviction must be reversed, and this case

remanded for a new trial.

Mr. Miller’s remaining assignment of error asserts that evidence

adduced at trial was insufficient to support his conviction for armed robbery.

Given that the conviction and sentence must be vacated in accordance with Ramos,

all other issues raised by Mr. Miller on appeal are hereby rendered moot.

III.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Mr. Miller’s conviction and sentence for

armed robbery are vacated, and this case is remanded for a new trial pursuant to

Ramos.

CONVICTION AND SENTENCE VACATED; REMANDED

FOR NEW TRIAL.

3