State Of Louisiana VS Kirby Thomas (2019KA0409R)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT NO. 2019 KA 0409R STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS KIRBY R. THOMAS Judgment Rendered: DEC 3 0 2020 On Appeal from the 23rd Judicial District Court In and for the Parish of Assumption State of Louisiana Trial Court No. 17- 123 Honorable Jason Verdigets, Judge Presiding Jeff Landry Attorney General Attorneys for Appellee, State of Louisiana Colin Clark J. Taylor Gray Assistant Attorneys General Baton Rouge, LA Ricky L. Babin District Attorney Thomas Daniel Daigle Lindsey D. Manda Assistant District Attorneys Gonzales, LA Mary Constance Hanes Attorney for Defendant -Appellant, New Orleans, LA Kirby R. Thomas BEFORE: HIGGINBOTHAM, PENZATO, AND LANIER, JJ. HIGGINBOTHAM, J. Defendant, Kirby R. Thomas, was charged by bill of indictment with four separate offenses: counts one and two for possession with intent to distribute cocaine, a violation of La. R.S. 40: 967( A); count three for attempted second degree murder, violations of La. R.S. 14: 27 and La. R.S. 14: 30. 1; and count four for being a convicted felon in possession of a firearm, a violation of La. R. S. 14: 95. 1. Before trial commenced, the State amended count one to possession of more than 28 grams, but fewer than 200 grams, dismissed count two. a violation of La. R.S. 40: 967( C), of cocaine, and Defendant pled not guilty to all counts. After a trial by jury, defendant was found guilty as charged of amended count one and count four, and guilty of the responsive offense of attempted manslaughter, violations of La. R.S. 14: 27 and La. R. S. 14: 31, for count three.' The verdicts for counts one and four were eleven -to -one, with a unanimous verdict on count three. The trial court imposed a term of five years imprisonment at hard labor on count one, to be served concurrently with consecutive terms of twenty and ten years imprisonment at hard labor for counts three and four respectively. This court affirmed defendant' s convictions on all three counts and his sentences on counts one and three on appeal, but remanded the conviction on count four for resentencing. State v. Thomas, 2019- 0409 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 10/ 25/ 19), 289 So. 3d 1030, 1045. However, the Louisiana Supreme Court granted defendant' s writ application and remanded the case to this court " to conduct a new error patent review in light of Ramos v. Louisiana [, 590 U.S. , 583 ( 2020)]." curiam). 140 S. Ct. 13901 206 L.Ed.2d State v. Thomas, 2019- 01819 ( La. 6/ 22/ 20), 297 So. 3d 727 ( per The supreme court noted the remand order " does not pertain to defendant' s The charged counts were listed in a different order on the jury verdict form, but for purposes of this opinion, we will refer to the charged counts as listed in the indictment. 2 conviction for [ count three] attempted manslaughter, which was by unanimous verdict" and otherwise denied the application. Id. In the trial court, at the conclusion of the State' s case, defendant objected to being subject to a non -unanimous jury verdict, but did not do so with any specificity or alleging any specific constitutional ground. On error patent review, the minutes reveal the jury verdicts on counts one and four were eleven -to -one. 2 In Ramos, 140 S. Ct. at 1397, the United States Supreme Court overruled Apodaca v. Oregon,' 406 U.S. 404, 92 S. Ct. 1628, 32 L.Ed.2d 184 ( 1972) 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. 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. Ramos, 140 S. Ct. at 1406. Thus, given the Ramos Court' s declaration of the unconstitutionality of non -unanimous jury verdicts, defendant' s convictions and sentences on counts one and four, which are based on non -unanimous jury verdicts, must be vacated. Finding that defendant' s convictions and sentences on counts one and four must be vacated and set aside, we remand those two counts alone for a new trial. CONVICTIONS AND SENTENCES FOR COUNT ONE, POSSESSION OF COCAINE, AND COUNT FOUR, FELON IN POSSESSION FIREARM, ARE VACATED AND SET ASIDE. OF A REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT COURT FOR A NEW TRIAL ON ONLY THOSE TWO COUNTS. 2 Defendant also raised this claim in his original appeal. Oregon' s non -unanimous jury verdict provision of its state constitution was challenged in Apodaca. 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.
