Summary
In Monroe, supra, the Louisiana Supreme Court held: "If the non-unanimous jury claim was not preserved for review in the trial court or was abandoned during any stage of the proceedings, the court of appeal should nonetheless consider the issue as part of its error patent review.
Summary of this case from State v. JonesOpinion
No. 2020-K-00335
06-03-2020
STATE of Louisiana v. Charles MONROE
Writ application granted. See per curiam.
PER CURIAM:
Writ granted. The matter is remanded to the court of appeal for further proceedings and to conduct a new error patent review in light of Ramos v. Louisiana , 590 U.S. ––––, 140 S.Ct. 1390, 206 L.Ed.2d 583 (2020). If the non-unanimous jury claim was not preserved for review in the trial court or was abandoned during any stage of the proceedings, the court of appeal should nonetheless consider the issue as part of its error patent review. See La.C.Cr.P. art. 920(2).
The present matter was pending on direct review when Ramos v. Louisiana was decided, and therefore the holding of Ramos applies. See Griffith v. Kentucky , 479 U.S. 314, 328, 107 S.Ct. 708, 716, 93 L.Ed.2d 649 (1987). Nothing herein should be construed as a determination as to whether that ruling will apply retroactively on state collateral review to those convictions and sentences that were final when Ramos was decided.