289 So.3d 1179
La. Ct. App.2020Background
- In 1994 Eric J. Brown (then 16) was implicated in the murder of Carmelo Salminen and an associated armed robbery; trial evidence included eyewitness observation, recovered property, and Brown found hiding during a search.
- Brown was convicted in 1996 by a non‑unanimous jury (10–2) of second‑degree murder and armed robbery; he received concurrent sentences of life without parole (murder) and 30 years (robbery).
- Brown’s convictions and sentences were affirmed on direct appeal in 1997 and became final when the Louisiana Supreme Court denied writs.
- After Miller v. Alabama and Montgomery v. Louisiana, the Louisiana Supreme Court remanded for a Miller hearing; the trial court resentenced Brown to life with parole eligibility (murder) and reimposed 30 years (robbery).
- Brown appealed the resentencing but did not assign specific error to the new sentence; instead he principally argued his convictions were not final and sought prospective benefit from the U.S. Supreme Court’s then‑pending Ramos decision on jury unanimity.
- The Fifth Circuit held the appeal is limited to sentencing issues arising from Miller, declined to decide speculative Ramos effects, affirmed the finality of Brown’s convictions, and affirmed the Miller resentencing (life with parole eligibility).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Finality of convictions after Miller resentencing | Brown: resentencing reopened his case so convictions are "not yet final" and he would benefit immediately from a favorable Ramos while on direct review | State: resentencing is limited to Miller issues; convictions were previously affirmed and final in 1997 | Court: convictions remained final; resentencing appeal is limited to sentencing issues only; convictions cannot be relitigated on this appeal |
| Application of Ramos (non‑unanimous juries) to Brown | Brown: if Ramos deems non‑unanimous verdicts unconstitutional and applies to cases pending on direct review, he should get relief now | State: issue is speculative and would require Ramos; relief, if any, must proceed via collateral review and retroactivity analysis | Court: refusal to issue advisory opinion; Brown must seek collateral relief after Ramos and retroactivity analysis if applicable |
| Scope of Miller remedy (resentencing vs. relitigation) | Brown: implied entitlement to more than parole eligibility (seeks broader relief) | State: Miller and Montgomery permit parole eligibility remedy; no wholesale relitigation required | Court: Miller only requires consideration of parole eligibility; resentencing limited to Miller issues; Brown received the most lenient sentence under current law |
| Reviewability of alleged jury‑unanimity error patent now | Brown: non‑unanimity is discoverable on the face of the record and should be reviewed under error‑patent review | State: any patent errors related to convictions were reviewed on the first appeal; Brown raised no new patent errors here | Court: declines a second error‑patent review of convictions; no new assignment of error presented; affirm finality |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012) (mandatory life without parole for juveniles violates Eighth Amendment insofar as it denies individualized consideration)
- Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S. Ct. 718 (2016) (Miller announced a substantive rule that applies retroactively and states may remedy by making juvenile offenders parole‑eligible)
- Ramos v. Louisiana, 139 S. Ct. 1318 (2019) (pending at time of opinion; concerns constitutionality of non‑unanimous jury verdicts)
- Griffith v. Kentucky, 479 U.S. 314 (1987) (new rules of criminal procedure apply retroactively to cases pending on direct review)
- Apodaca v. Oregon, 406 U.S. 404 (1972) (plurality decision holding the Constitution does not require unanimous jury verdicts in state felony trials)
- Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989) (framework for retroactivity of new constitutional rules)
- State v. Brown, 694 So.2d 435 (La. App. 5 Cir. 1997) (appellate opinion affirming Brown’s original convictions and sentences)