Date: 05-15-2021

Case Style:

Case Number: KA -0020-0288

Judge: Sharon Wilson

Court: STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

Plaintiff's Attorney: Hon. Keith A. Stutes
Lafayette Parish District Attorney

Defendant's Attorney:

Criminal Defense Lawyer Directory

Description:

Lake Charles, LA - Criminal defense attorney represented Tony M. Alexander with a indecent behavior with a juvenile under the age of thirteen charge

In May of 2016, A Lafayette police officer was approached by a man who
claimed his nine-year-old daughter was molested by a family member. The alleged
perpetrator was Tony Alexander, who was living with the family of the victim off
and on along with his mother. Jury trial began on November 5, 2019. That morning,
Counsel for defendant moved for the court to charge the jury that a unanimous jury
verdict was required. The trial court denied the motion. On November 6, 2019,
Defendant was convicted as charged by a ten-to-two verdict. On January 23, 2020,
Defendant filed a motion for acquittal or alternatively, a new trial in which counsel,
again, brought up the unanimous jury verdict. The motion alleged in part that
“similarly situated defendants are now entitled to a unanimous jury verdict.” At the
hearing of the motion, the trial court discussed the allegations pertaining to the 2
motion for acquittal but not the alleged basis for a new trial and denied the entire
motion. On March 3, 2020, the trial court sentenced Defendant to serve ten years at
hard labor, with all but five years suspended, and with three years of active
supervised probation with conditions.
III.
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. Alexander’s assignment of
error relating to the requirement of a unanimous jury verdict.
UNANIMOUS JURY VERDICT
Mr. Alexander argues he is entitled to a new trial because his nonunanimous
jury verdict was declared unconstitutional in Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U.S. ___, 140
S.Ct. 1390 (2020). The U.S. Supreme Court held that Louisiana’s provision for nonunanimous jury verdict was unconstitutional. Although the concurring justices in
Ramos did not join in all parts of the majority opinion, the Supreme Court
unambiguously determined that nonunanimous verdicts are not permitted by the
Sixth Amendment to the Constitution. This prohibition applies to the states through
the Fourteenth Amendment. Id. see also concurrences by Justices Sotomayor,
Kavanaugh, and Thomas.
The Supreme Court’s decision in Ramos invalidates non-unanimous
convictions where the issue is preserved, and the case is still on direct review. The
record shows that Defendant’s case was still in the process of direct review at the 3
time of the Ramos decision, therefore, Ramos applies and requires Defendant’s
conviction be vacated.

Outcome: For the foregoing reasons, Mr. Alexander’s conviction and sentence for
indecent behavior with a juvenile under the age of thirteen is vacated, and this case
is remanded for a new trial pursuant to Ramos.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: