STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS LORENZO DANELA WATSON A/K/A LORENOZA DANELA WATSON Vs.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT 21-206 STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS LORENZO DANELA WATSON A/K/A LORENOZA DANELA WATSON ********** APPEAL FROM THE FOURTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF CALCASIEU, NO. 2058-18 HONORABLE SHARON D. WILSON, DISTRICT JUDGE ********** D. KENT SAVOIE JUDGE ********** Court composed of D. Kent Savoie, Candyce G. Perret, and Charles G. Fitzgerald, Judges. CONVICTION VACATED; REMANDED. Stephen C. Dwight District Attorney Dale R. Lee John E. Turner Assistant District Attorneys Fourteenth Judicial District Post Office Box 3206 Lake Charles, Louisiana 70601 (337) 437-3400 COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE: State of Louisiana Chad M. Ikerd Ikerd Law Firm, LLC Louisiana Appellate Project Post Office Box 2125 Lafayette, Louisiana 70502 (337) 366-8994 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT: Lorenzo Danela Watson SAVOIE, Judge. Defendant, Lorenzo Danela Watson, was charged by bill of indictment on January 18, 2018, with aggravated rape, in violation of La.R.S. 14:42. 1 After pleading not guilty to the charge, trial by jury began on September 9, 2019. The jury returned a verdict of guilty on the count of aggravated rape in an 11-1 decision. Defendant was sentenced to life without the benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence with credit for time served. Defendant filed a Motion for Appeal on October 17, 2019, and it was subsequently granted. Defendant is now before this court asserting one assignment of error. For the following reasons, we vacate Defendant’s conviction for aggravated rape because the jury verdict was non-unanimous. FACTS On January 10, 1997, J.A.2 was raped at knife point by an unknown suspect. The case was not solved and was thereafter closed. On May 2, 2017, the case was reopened, and the sexual assault kit was sent to the crime lab for DNA testing. The results of the DNA testing implicated Defendant. 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 several errors patent: (1) the jury returned a non-unanimous jury verdict; (2) the trial court failed to impose the sentence at hard labor, rendering the sentence illegally lenient; and (3) the trial court failed to advise Defendant of the time period for filing postThe bill of indictment and case caption incorrectly spell Defendant’s first name “Lorenzo,” but Defendant’s first name is “Lorenoza.” We will use Defendant’s name as it appears on the bill of indictment. 1 2 Victim’s initials will be used pursuant to La.R.S. 46:1844(W)(1)(a). conviction relief as required by La.Code Crim.P. art. 930.8. Since appellate counsel assigned the jury’s return of a non-unanimous jury verdict as error, we have discussed that error as an assigned error. As stated below, the non-unanimous jury verdict requires Defendant’s conviction be vacated, and the case remanded for a new trial. Consequently, the remaining two errors patent are rendered moot. ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR Defendant’s conviction for aggravated rape was returned by a nonunanimous jury. Accordingly, he contends his conviction should be vacated as required by Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U.S. __, 140 S.Ct. 1390 (2020). The State agrees with Defendant’s argument. 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. The prohibition applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. Id. at p. 1397; see also concurrences by Sotomayor, Kavanaugh, and Thomas, JJ. The decision applies to cases pending on direct review. Defendant’s case was still in the process of direct review at the time of the Ramos decision. Thus, Ramos applies and requires Defendant’s conviction for aggravated rape by a non-unanimous jury be vacated. DECREE Defendant’s conviction and sentence for aggravated rape is vacated, and the case is remanded for a new trial pursuant to Ramos. CONVICTION VACATED; REMANDED. This opinion is NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. Uniform Rules—Courts of Appeal. Rule 2–16.3. 2
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.
