State Of Louisiana VS Kendell Shanner Cagler (2018KA0427R)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT 2018 KA 0427 R STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS KENDELL SHANNER CAGLER JUDGMENT RENDERED: SEP 3 0 2020 Appealed from the Twenty -Second Judicial District Court In and for the Parish of St. Tammany • State of Louisiana Docket Number 577420 • Division C The Honorable Richard A. Swartz, Judge Presiding Warren L. Montgomery District Attorney ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE State of Louisiana Matthew Caplan Assistant District Attorney Covington, Louisiana Katherine M. Franks ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT Louisiana Appellate Project DEFENDANTKendell Shannon Madisonville, Louisiana Cagler BEFORE: WELCH, CHUTZ, AND LANIER, JJ. WELCH, I The State of Louisiana charged the defendant, Kendell Shanner Cagler, by an amended bill of information with one count of armed robbery with a firearm, a violation of La. R.S. 14: 64 and 14: 64. 3 ( count I); one count of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, a violation of La. R.S. 14: 95. 1 ( count II); count of aggravated second degree battery, a violation of La. R.S. III). and one 14: 34. 7 ( count Following a jury trial, a non -unanimous jury found the defendant guilty as charged on counts I and II, and not guilty on count III. On count I, the trial court sentenced the defendant to imprisonment at hard labor for sixty years, with an additional five-year imprisonment at hard labor pursuant to La. R.S. 14: 64. 3, the firearm enhancement statute. On count II, the trial court sentenced the defendant to imprisonment at hard labor for twenty years. The trial court ordered the defendant' s sentences on both counts without benefit of parole, suspension of sentence. probation, or The trial court gave the defendant credit for time served. The trial court subsequently adjudicated the defendant a fourth -felony habitual offender and resentenced him on count I to life imprisonment at hard labor without the benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence. This court affirmed the defendant' s convictions and sentences on appeal. See State v. Cagier, 2018- 0427 ( unpublished). La. App. Pt Cir. 11/ 7/ 18), 2018 AVL 5876878 However, the Louisiana Supreme Court granted the defendant' s writ application and remanded the case to this court " for further proceedings and to conduct a new error patent review in light of Ramos v. Louisiana, 140 S. Ct. 1390, 206 L. Ed. 2d 583 ( 2020)[,]" final, but still pending on direct review. U.S. , as the defendant' s case was not yet See State v. Cagier, 2018- 02015 ( La. 6/ 3/ 20), 296 So. 3d 1017, 2020 WL 3423802, at * 1 ( per curiam) ( citing Griffith v. Kentucky, 479 U.S. 314, 328, 107 S. Ct. 708, 716, 93 L. Ed. 2d 649 ( 1987)). P In Ramos, the United States Supreme Court overruled Apodaca v. Oregon' and held that the right to a jury trial under the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution, incorporated against the States by way of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, requires a unanimous verdict to convict a defendant of a serious offense. Ramos, 140 S. Ct. at 1397. The Ramos Court further noted that its ruling applied to those defendants convicted of felonies by non -unanimous verdicts whose cases are still pending on direct appeal. 140 S. Ct. at 1406. Ramos, Accordingly, the defendant' s convictions and sentences are vacated, and we remand this case for a new trial. DECREE In light of Ramos v. Louisiana, U.S. , 140 S. Ct. 13909 206 L. Ed. 2d 583 ( 2020), we vacate the defendant' s convictions and sentences and remand this matter for a new trial. CONVICTIONS AND SENTENCES VACATED; REMANDED FOR NEW TRIAL. 1 Oregon' s non -unanimous jury verdict provision of its state constitution was challenged in Apodaca v. Oregon, 406 U. S. 404, 412- 13, 92 S. Ct. 1628, 1634, 32 L. Ed. 2d 184 ( 1972). Johnson v. Louisiana, 406 U. S. 356, 92 S. Ct. 1620, 32 L. Ed. 2d 152 ( 1972), decided with Apodaca, upheld Louisiana' s then -existing constitutional and statutory provisions allowing nine to -three jury verdicts in criminal cases. 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
