310 So.3d 826
La. Ct. App.2021Background
- Defendant Juan Carlos Ramos was charged with attempted second-degree murder for stabbing Bryan Guillot Jr. with a machete on August 6, 2018; the attack was recorded on the defendant's phone and the victim suffered severe arterial, nerve, tendon injuries and required multiple surgeries.
- Defendant pled not guilty, and during pretrial proceedings objected to La. C.Cr.P. art. 782 insofar as it permitted non-unanimous jury verdicts.
- A jury convicted Ramos of the lesser-included offense of attempted manslaughter by a non-unanimous 10–2 verdict; he was sentenced to 20 years at hard labor and timely appealed.
- On appeal Ramos argued the non-unanimous verdict violated the Sixth Amendment as interpreted in Ramos v. Louisiana (2020).
- The Fifth Circuit concluded the offense is a "serious offense" (punishable by >6 months), that Ramos requires unanimous verdicts in state trials, and because Ramos is on direct appeal the non-unanimous verdict required vacatur and remand for a new trial.
- The court noted an unrelated clerical discrepancy in the commitment order (charged vs. convicted offense) but found it moot in light of vacatur.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a non-unanimous 10–2 verdict can sustain a conviction after Ramos v. Louisiana | State sought to uphold the conviction (defense of verdict) | Ramos requires unanimous verdicts; non-unanimous verdict invalid | Vacated conviction; non-unanimous verdict unacceptable under Ramos |
| Whether attempted manslaughter/attempted 2nd-degree murder is a "serious offense" for Sixth Amendment unanimity purposes | State implicitly treated it as serious (punishable at hard labor) | Defendant argued unanimity required for serious offenses | Held serious (punishment >6 months); unanimity required |
| Remedy for non-unanimous conviction pending on direct appeal after Ramos | State could have argued limited or no remedy | Defendant requested new trial | Granted: vacated and remanded for new trial |
| Miscellaneous error-patent (commitment form lists attempted manslaughter vs. attempted 2nd-degree murder) | State argued clerical issue | Defendant noted discrepancy | Moot due to vacatur; no further action required now |
Key Cases Cited
- Ramos v. Louisiana, 140 S. Ct. 1390 (2020) (Sixth Amendment requires unanimous jury verdicts in state and federal serious-offense trials)
- Lewis v. United States, 518 U.S. 322 (1996) (discusses the Sixth Amendment jury-trial right and definition of serious offenses)
- State v. Harrell, 299 So.3d 1274 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2020) (applies Ramos and treats offenses punishable by more than six months as "serious")
- State v. Oliveaux, 312 So.2d 337 (La. 1975) (standard for appellate error-patent review)
- State v. Raymo, 419 So.2d 858 (La. 1982) (procedures for appellate review of patent errors)