State of Louisiana v. Latracus Henry

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

22-240 consolidated with 22-241

STATE OF LOUISIANA

VERSUS

LATRACUS HENRY

**********

APPEAL FROM THE
TWELFTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF AVOYELLES, NO. 2013-CR-175213-A
HONORABLE KERRY LYNDON SPRUILL, DISTRICT JUDGE

**********

SHANNON J. GREMILLION
JUDGE

**********

Court composed of Shannon J. Gremillion, D. Kent Savoie, and Sharon Darville
Wilson, Judges.

VACATED AND REMANDED.

Sherry Watters
Louisiana Appellate Project
P. O. Box 58769
New Orleans, LA 70158-8769
(504) 723-0284
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT:
Latracus Henry

Hon. Charles A. Riddle, III
Twelfth Judicial District Attorney
Jonathan T. Gaspard
Assistant District Attorney
P. O. Box 546
Marksville, LA 71351
(318) 240-7329
COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE:
State of Louisiana

GREMILLION, Judge.

FACTS

In July 2013, Defendant was found by Bunkie police in the vicinity of reported

gunshots. He was in possession of weapons. Defendant is and was a convicted felon,

and he was arrested and charged with possession of a firearm or carrying a concealed

weapon by a convicted felon, a violation of La.R.S. 14:95.1.

Defendant was also originally charged with the second degree murder of Dana

Schenk, who was shot and died the night Mr. Henry was in possession of a handgun.

However, the State chose to proceed only with the felon in possession of a firearm

charge. No evidence of Ms. Schenk’s death was admitted during the trial. During

deliberations, the jury sent the trial judge an unsigned note which questioned

whether their knowledge of the death disqualified them. The note apparently

referred to Ms. Schenk, whose daughter was a witness for the State during the trial.

The trial court denied disqualification of the jurors and Defendant’s motion

for mistrial. The jury then returned a 10-2 conviction. Defendant originally

appealed the verdict, and this court reversed, holding that Defendant was deprived

of a fair trial. State v. Henry, 15-321 (La.App. 3 Cir. 11/12/15), 178 So.3d 1134.

The Louisiana Supreme Court granted the State’s writ of certiorari, finding

error in relying on the anonymous, unsworn letter. The supreme court also found

that the trial court had erred in not questioning the jurors about whether they were

aware of Ms. Schenk’s death and how they came to know of it. The matter was

remanded for an evidentiary hearing. State v. Henry, 15-2300 (La. 3/24/16), 187

So.3d 984.

The district court conducted the ordered hearing over the course of three dates:

July 14, 2016, September 26, 2016, and March 23, 2017. On October 17, 2017, the

district court issued a written ruling affirming the conviction.

In the meantime, on September 19, 2017, the Louisiana State Bar Association

determined that Defendant’s counsel was ineligible to practice law. Defendant was

granted an out-of-time appeal on March 22, 2021.

Defendant assigns three errors: violation of his right to a speedy trial; violation

of his right to due process, in that the verdict was not unanimous; and improper

influences tainted the jury’s deliberations.

DISCUSSION

Defendant contends that he has been denied his right to a speedy trial.

Defendant was originally tried, this court reversed, and the supreme court granted

writs and remanded for an evidentiary hearing. The supreme court’s grant of writs

was not a reversal, Defendant contends. Thus, for nine years Defendant has

languished in jail awaiting “a valid trial and a completed appeal.”

We disagree with Defendant’s contention regarding the nature of the supreme

court’s grant of certiorari. The supreme court found that an evidentiary hearing was

required in order to determine whether the jurors actually knew of Ms. Schenk’s

death and how they came to know of it. Henry, 187 So.3d 984. This court had

invalidated Defendant’s conviction because the trial court did not recall and question

the jurors about their knowledge of Ms. Schenk’s death. Henry, 178 So.3d 1134.

This court reversed the conviction; the supreme court found that to do so was error.

We consider the supreme court’s ruling to be a reversal. This assignment of error

lacks merit.

In Ramos v. Louisiana, ___ U.S. ___, 140 S.Ct. 1390 (2020), the United States

Supreme Court held that the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution requires a

unanimous verdict to convict a defendant in both state and federal courts. In

Edwards v. Vannoy, ___ U.S. ___, 141 S.Ct. 1547 (2021), the Court held that Ramos

does not apply retroactively to invalidate a non-unanimous conviction on collateral
2

review. Edwards, however, emphasized that Ramos did apply to cases on direct

review.

Defendant’s case poses a very unusual circumstance in which an accused was

convicted, his case was reversed by an intermediate court of appeal, remanded by

the State’s highest court, his lawyer was declared ineligible to practice law, he

searched for other counsel, and his search was complicated by the intervention of

the COVID-19 pandemic. Once Defendant procured representation, he sought and

was granted an out-of-time appeal. We find that Defendant’s case is still progressing

through the direct appeal process, and, as the State concedes in its brief, Defendant

is entitled to a new trial.

DECREE

Defendant’s conviction is vacated. The matter is remanded to the trial court

for a new trial.

VACATED AND REMANDED.

3