# State Of Louisiana v. Arlen J. Brown

> Louisiana Court of Appeal · April 26, 2021

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10624221

## Case

- **Court:** Louisiana Court of Appeal
- **Decided:** April 26, 2021
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10624221

## Opinion text

STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

STATE OF LOUISIANA NO. 2021 KW 0347

VERSUS

ARLEN J. BROWN APRIL 26, 2021

In Re: Arlen J. Brown, applying for supervisory writs, 23rd
Judicial District Court, Parish of Ascension, No.

10949.

BEFORE: GUIDRY, McCLENDON, AND LANIER, JJ.

WRIT DENIED. In Ramos v. Louisiana, _ U. S. , _, 140
S. Ct. 1390, 1397, 206 L. Ed. 2d 583 ( 2020), the United States

Supreme Court held, " the Sixth Amendment' s unanimity requirement
applies to state and federal criminal trials equally." However,

the Court declined to address whether its holding applied

retroactively to cases on collateral review. The Court

specifically observed that the question of "[ w] hether the right

to jury unanimity applies to cases on collateral review is a

question for a future case where the parties will have a chance

to brief the issue and we will benefit from their adversarial

presentation." See Ramos, _ U. S. at , 140 S. Ct. at 1407.
The question of whether Ramos must apply retroactively to cases

on federal collateral review is currently pending before the
Court. Edwards v. Vannoy, _ U. S. F 140 S. Ct. 2737, 206
L. Ed. 2d 917 ( 2020). Moreover, the Louisiana Supreme Court has
declined to definitively rule on whether Ramos should apply on

collateral review in state court proceedings pending a decision
in Edwards. See State v. Gipson, 2019- 01815 ( La. 6/ 3/ 20), 296
So. 3d 1051, 1052 ( Johnson, C. J., dissenting to point out that

she disagreed with the majority' s decision to defer ruling until
the United States Supreme Court mandates action). Therefore, we

are constrained to deny relief at this time. However, our

decision does not preclude relator from reurging the issue in
the district court if warranted by the decision of the higher
court( s).

JMG
PMC
WIL

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

DEPUTY C ERK OF COURT
FOR THE COURT

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10624221. Public record. Not legal advice.