DONALD A. LOGAN NO. 24-KH-463 VERSUS FIFTH CIRCUIT TIM HOOPER, WARDEN, LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL STATE PENITENTIARY STATE OF LOUISIANA

October 10, 2024 Linda Wiseman First Deputy Clerk

IN RE DONALD A. LOGAN APPLYING FOR SUPERVISORY WRIT FROM THE TWENTY-FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF LOUISIANA, DIRECTED TO THE HONORABLE NANCY A. MILLER, DIVISION "I", NUMBER 03-4506

Panel composed of Judges Susan M. Chehardy, Marc E. Johnson, and Stephen J. Windhorst

WRIT DENIED In 2006 relator, Donald A. Logan, was convicted by a non-unanimous jury of second-degree murder. The trial court sentenced relator to life imprisonment at hard labor without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence. This Court upheld his conviction and sentence on appeal. State v. Logan, 07-739 (La. App. 5 Cir. 5/27/08), 986 So.2d 772, writ denied, 08-1525 (La. 3/13/09), 5 So.3d 117, cert. denied, 558 U.S. 856, 130 S.Ct. 142, 175 L.Ed.2d 93 (2009).

On July 16, 2024, relator filed a Motion to Set Aside Sentence. However, relator’s motion constitutes an application for post-conviction relief (APCR), as set out in La. C.Cr.P. art. 924.1 Under La. C.Cr.P. art. 930.4, relator’s application is repetitive, as it raises the same issues addressed in a previous APCR. See Logan v. Vannoy, 21-282 (La. App. 5 Cir. 6/21/21) (unpublished writ disposition).

Moreover, under La. C.Cr.P. art. 930.8(A), relator’s application is untimely, as “[n]o application for post-conviction relief, including applications which seek an out-of-time appeal, shall be considered if it is filed more than two years after the judgment of conviction and sentence has become final[,]” and none of the exceptions enumerated in Article 930.8(A) apply here.

Even if relator’s APCR were not repetitive and untimely, his argument is without merit. Relator contends that his sentence was imposed after a verdict that was obtained from an improper number of jurors.

La. C.Cr.P. art. 924 provides that an application for post-conviction relief “means a petition filed by a person in custody after sentence following conviction for the commission of an offense seeking to have the conviction and sentence set aside.”

24-KH-463 In Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U.S. --, 140 S.Ct. 1390, 206 L.Ed.2d 583 (2020), the United States Supreme Court held that a defendant who is tried for a serious crime has a right to a unanimous jury verdict. Ramos, which abrogated Apodaca v. Oregon, 406 U.S. 404, 92 S.Ct. 1628, 32 L.Ed.2d 184 (1972), explicitly applies only to cases pending on direct appeal and to future cases. 140 S.Ct. at 1407. The Supreme Court further held in Edwards v. Vannoy, 593 U.S. 255, 141 S.Ct. 1547, 1554 (2021), that the jury-unanimity rule in Ramos does not apply retroactively on federal collateral review. The Edwards Court notes, however, that states remained free to retroactively apply the jury-unanimity rule as a matter of state law in state post-conviction proceedings if they chose to do so. S.Ct. at 1559, n.6 (citing Danforth v. Minnesota, 552 U.S. 264, 282, 128 S.Ct. 1029, 169 L.Ed.2d 859 (2008)).

In 2022, the Louisiana Supreme Court closed the door left open by Edwards when it held that Ramos does not apply retroactively in Louisiana on collateral review: [W]e find that, though the Sixth Amendment violation at issue is a serious one, finality and reliance interests, combined with the burden placed upon the administration of justice, informed by the actions of the citizens of this state and the legislature, outweigh retroactive application of the Ramos rule. Therefore, the new rule of criminal procedure announced in Ramos which provides for unanimity in jury verdicts is not retroactive in Louisiana.

State v. Reddick, 21-1893 (La. 10/21/22), 351 So.3d 273, 283.

Relator was convicted in 2006. At the time of his conviction, a non- unanimous jury verdict was not unconstitutional under Apodaca v. Oregon, 406 U.S. 404, 92 S.Ct. 1628, 32 L.Ed.2d 184 (1972), and his conviction became final long before Ramos. Reddick states that Ramos is not retroactive in state post- conviction proceedings. The trial court did not err in denying relator’s motion to set aside sentence. Accordingly, relator’s writ application is denied.

Gretna, Louisiana, this 10th day of October, 2024.

SMC MEJ SJW

SUSAN M. CHEHARDY CURTIS B. PURSELL CHIEF JUDGE CLERK OF COURT

SUSAN S. BUCHHOLZ FREDERICKA H. WICKER CHIEF DEPUTY CLERK JUDE G. GRAVOIS MARC E. JOHNSON STEPHEN J. WINDHORST LINDA M. WISEMAN JOHN J. MOLAISON, JR. FIRST DEPUTY CLERK SCOTT U. SCHLEGEL TIMOTHY S. MARCEL FIFTH CIRCUIT MELISSA C. LEDET JUDGES 101 DERBIGNY STREET (70053) DIRECTOR OF CENTRAL STAFF POST OFFICE BOX 489 GRETNA, LOUISIANA 70054 (504) 376-1400 (504) 376-1498 FAX www.fifthcircuit.org

NOTICE OF DISPOSITION CERTIFICATE OF DELIVERY I CERTIFY THAT A COPY OF THE DISPOSITION IN THE FOREGOING MATTER HAS BEEN TRANSMITTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH UNIFORM RULES - COURT OF APPEAL, RULE 4-6 THIS DAY 10/10/2024 TO THE TRIAL JUDGE, THE TRIAL COURT CLERK OF COURT, AND AT LEAST ONE OF THE COUNSEL OF RECORD FOR EACH PARTY, AND TO EACH PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL, AS LISTED BELOW:

24-KH-463 E-NOTIFIED 24th Judicial District Court (Clerk) Honorable Nancy A. Miller (DISTRICT JUDGE) Thomas J. Butler (Respondent) MAILED Donald A. Logan #350072 (Relator) Louisiana State Penitentiary Angola, LA 70712