Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Dylan Magluilo, Petitioner v. Louisiana

A-

-i' •

%

28

NO?

ORI IN

H LED

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

OCTOBER TERM, 20____

DYLAN MAGLUILO

PETITIONER

VERSUS

STATE OF LOUISIANA,

RESPONDENT

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE

SUPREME COURT FOR THE STATE OF LOUISIANA

Respectfully submitted:

JXfL r4”

Dykai Magluilo

DOC #725838

Camp C, Wolf-2

Louisiana State Prison

Angola, LA 70712

n&cmml

JUN 2 6 2019

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR MiVTKW

Did Louisiana Courts err in denying Dylan Magluilo right to a fair trial and subsequent

review when rejecting claims involving. Conflicting Decisions of this Honorable Court? The

State Court erroneously interpreted the application of constitutional law causing material

injustice and significantly affects the public interest Louisiana Courts also grossly departed from

proper judicial proceedings in tins case abusing its powers in such ways causing this Court to

exercise its authority.

Mr. Magluilo contends, the Louisiana Second Circuit Court, of Appeals and State

Supreme Cotut erred in upholding the convictions and sentences in this case. This error is in

direct conflict with jurisprudence set by those Court and this Honorable Court.

Hie Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitutions provides inter alia that, “...no

person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.” Hie Fourteenth

Amendment imposes the same due process requirement on die States. Implicit in the due process

clause is the protection of an accused against conviction except upon proof beyond a reasonable

doubt of every fact necessary to constitute (he crime with which he is charged. In Re Winshipy

397 U S. 358, 90 S.Ct. 1068, 25 L.Ed.2d 368 (1970); Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U S. 307, 99 S.Ct.

2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). An accused is entitled to an appellate review of the evidence to the

extent that it supports a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

i

LIST OF PARTIES:

Dylan Magluilo #725838

Louisiana Slate Penitentiary

Camp C, Wolf-2

Angola, Louisiana 70712

James E. Stewart, (Attorney for the State of Louisiana)

District Attorney for the Parish of Caddo

501 Caddo Parish Courthouse

Shreveport, Louisiana 71101

(318)429-7618

Jeff Landry (may be an interested party, though he was no involved in the proceedings below)

Attorney General for the State of Louisiana

301 Main Street

Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70802

telephone (225) 342-7552

U

TABLE OF CONTENTS

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW................................

LIST OF PARTIES.......................................................................

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI................ ........... ....

OPINION BELOW................ ................... .................................

JURISDICTION...........................................................................

CONSTITUTIONAL AND FEDERAL PROVISION INVOLVED

STATEMENT OF THE CASE.................................. ...................

i

Ji

1

1

2

,2

.2

SPECIAL AND IMPORTANT REASONS

CERTIORARI SHOULD BE GRANTED:

COMPLIANCE WITH U.S. SUPREME COURT RULE

.5

STATEMENT OF FACTS,

2

INSUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE,

.5

CONCLUSION

AFFIDAVIT.....

8

9

APPENDIX “A”

APPENDIX “B*

APPENDIX

Original Appellate Brief

Appellate Court's Decision

Louisiana Supreme Court Ruling

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT CASES:

In Re Winship,r 397 U S. 358,90 S.Ct. 1068, 25 L.Ed.2d 368 (1970).......

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307,99 S.C't 2781,61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979)

Buries v. United States, 437 U.S. 1,98 S.Ct. 2141,576 L.Ed.2d 1 (1978).

5

5

,7

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS

Fifth Amendment...............................

Fourteenth Amendment....................

Louisiana. Constitution, Article 1 §16

2

2

11

LOUISIANA STATE CASES

State v. Bellamy, 599 So.2d 326 (La. App. 2 Cir.), writ denied, 605 So.2d 1089 (1992).

State v. Cotton, 634 So.2d 937 (La. App. 2 Cir. 1994)....................................................

Sate v. Richardson, 425 So.2d 1228 (La 1983).............................................................

Statev. Lewis, 577 So.2d799 (La App. 2 Cir. 1991)..................................................

State v. WUtcher, 41,981 (La App. 2 Cir. 5/9/07), 956. So.2d 769.................................

State v. Bund, 40,480 (La App. 2 Cir. 1/27/06), 921 So.2d 219,writ denied, 2006-1083

(La. 11/9/06), 941 So.2d35...........................................................................................

Sale v. Wiliams, 423 So.2d 1048 (La 1982).................................................................

5

6

6

6

6

6

7

STATESTATUTES

LSA-R.S. 14:30.1....

2

LaC.Cr.P. 821..........

13

FEDERAL STATUTES

28U.S.C. §1257

2

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Petitioner respectful!}' prays that a writ of certiorari issue to review the judgment below.

OPINIONS BELOW

[ ] For cases from federal courts:

Hie opinion of the United States court of appeals appear at Appendix

and is

to the petition

[ ] reported at

;or,

[ ] has been designated for publication but is not yet reported; or,

[ ] is unpublished.

The opinion of the United States district court appears at Appendix

and is

to the petition

[ ] reported at

; or,

[ ] has been designated for publication but is not yet reported; or,

[ ] is unpublished.

[X] For cases from state courts:

The opinion of the highest state court to review the merits appears at Appendix

the petition and is

”A"

[X] reported at Stale v. Magluito, No., 20I8-KO-1684;__ So.3d__ (La. 4/15/19); or,

[ ] has been designated for publication but is not yet reported; or,

[X] is unpublished.

The opinion of the Fourth Circuit Court ofAppeals appears at Appendix

the petition and is

”B”

to

[X] reported at. State v. Magtuib, 52,227-KA;__ So.3d___ (La. App. 2 Cir. 9/26/18); or,

[ ] has been designated for publication but is not yet reported; or,

[X ] is unpublished.

to

JURISDICTION

[ ] For cases from federal courts:

The date on which the United States Court ofAppeals decided my case

was

____.

[ ] No petition for rehearing was timely filed in my case.

[ ] A timely petition for rehearing was denied by the United States Court of Appeals on the

, and a copy of the order denying rehearing appeal's

following date:

at Appendix_

[ ] An extension of time to file the petition for writ of certiorari was granted to and including

(date) in Application No.____ A_____ .

(date) on

The jurisdiction of this Court, is invoked under 28 U.S.C. §1254(1).

[ ] For cases from state court:

[ ] A timely petition for rehearing was thereafter denied on the following date:

______________ , and a copy of the order denying rehearing appears at Appendix_______

[ ] An extension of time to file the petition for writ, of certiorari was granted to and including

(date) in Application No.____ A_____

(date) on

The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U.S.C. §1257(a).

No.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

OCTOBER TERM, 2018

DYLAN MAGLUILO, PETITIONER

VERSUS

STATE OF LOUISIANA, RESPONDENT

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE

UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT

Petitioner, Dylan Magluiio, respectfully prays that, a writ of certiorari issue to review the

judgment of the Supreme Court for the State of Louisiana, which, by a seven to zero decision,

denied Petitioner’s timely Application for Writ of Certiorari in this matter on April 15, 2019,

which is within ninety days of this Petition for Writ, of Certiorari.

OPINION BELOW

Dylan Magluiio was convicted in Caddo Parish District Court, under Docket No.

335,569, of second degree murder. Trial ended with a verdict of guilty on, November 10, 2017.

Magluilo’s conviction and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal in die Louisiana Second

Circuit Court of Appeal under Docket No. 52,227-KA, on September 26, 2018. Writs were

sought in the Louisiana Supreme Court bearing Docket No. 2018-KO-1684 and denied on, April

15,2019.

1

JURISDICTION

The order of the Supreme Couit for die State of Louisiana denying Mr. Magluilo's

Application for Writ of Certiorari is filed within ninety days of flint date, pursuant to Supreme

Court Rule 13.1. The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U.S.C. §1257.

CONSTITUTIONAL AND FEDERAL PROVISION INVOLVED

Fifth Amendment to United States Constitution: “No person shall... be deprived of life

liberty, or property, except by due process of law...”

Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1, to United Stales Constitution: “..nor shall any state

deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law...”

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Mr. Magluilo was indicted by a Caddo Parish Grand Jury for Second Degree Murder

(LSA-R.S. 14:30.1) for the murder of Mark Anthony Cornett. The incident giving rise to flits

allegation occurred on September 9, 2015, in Shreveport, Louisiana On December 15, 2015, Mr.

Dylan Magluilo waived formalities and pled not guilty to the indictment. (Rec. p. 1), Discovery

was requested by the defense and provided by the State prior to trial. The trial in this case began

on November 7, 2017, with jury selection. (Rec. p. 3). On November 20, 2017, he was found to

be guilty as charged for the second degree murder of Mark Cornett. (Rec. pp. 4, 1404-05). Mr.

Magluilo was sentenced on November 20, 2017, to life prison, without benefit of parole,

probation or suspension of sentence. (Rec. pp. 4,1408-10). An appeal was taken to the Louisiana

Second Circuit Court of Appeal under Docket No. 52,227-KA which was ultimately denied on,

September 26, 2018.

2

STATEMENT OF FACTS

On September 9, 2015, Mark Cornett was shot one time in the back of his head which

resulted in bis immediate death. Dr. James Traylor testified that the weapon that, killed Mark

Cornett was fired from a close distance. (R.p. 1017). This incident occurred at Monkhouse Drive

and 1-20 at the stoplight, at. the end of the West Bound exit. At. Monkhouse. (R.p. 1022). Mark

Cornett was the driver of a black Lincoln and the passengers were Lacey Smith, Tood Scruggs

and the accused, Dylan Magluilo. All four were dug users and were participants of the drug

culture.

Lacey Smith testified that she only met Todd Scruggs once before this incident which

occurred in the early morning hours of September 9, 2015. (R.p. 885). According to her

testimony at trial, Todd Scruggs picked her up and the two aided up at the Hilton Hotel in

downtown Shreveport. (R.p 1889). The two left from the Hilton after dropping off other girls that

Todd Scruggs had in the car. (R.p. 890). Lacey Smith and Todd Scruggs were trying to find

someone to buy drugs from. She said that she contacted her of about one year, Mark Cornett,

who she used methamphetamine with, to try to get. drags. Mark Cornett met Scruggs and Smith

back at the Hilton parking lot and, after an attempt by Mark Cornett to buy drags from another,

he said that they had to drive to Monkhouse Drive to get drugs. (R_p. 894). Lacey Smith said that

she was in the rear passenger's seat, that Todd Scruggs was in the front passenger seat. At this

point, still in the parking lot, she testified that Mr. Magluilo was in the lot with a duffel bag and

that he also got in the car behind Mark Cornett. The four then drove on the interstate to

Monkhouse Drive and after exiting, came to a stop at. the red light at the end of the exit ramp.

Lacey Smith alleged that while stopped at. the red light, she saw movement to her left and when

3

she looked, die said that Mr. Maglnilo hadagun and that he shot Mark Cornett in the back of the

head. (R_p. 897). Lacey Smith said that she started screaming and she ran. She said that she ran

in the Day's Inn across Interstate-20, and since she had drugs in her purse, die threw away the

whole purse away. During her run, she looked back mid saw Todd Scruggs push Mr. Magluilo

and tell him “not to shoot her.'’ (R.p. 898). Todd Scruggs caught up with her and she said they

ended up at the Moonrider Motel, where she was able to get Ted Wheat to pick the up. (R.p.

900). After going back to the Hilton, she said that she and Todd Scruggs ended up back at Ted

Wheat's house and from there, the two went to a local attorney and then to the police station.

(R-p. 903). She was interviewed by detectives and then released after giving her statement

Todd Scraggs also claimed that Mr. Magluilo shot Maik Cornett. After testifying

similarly as Lacey Smith, he said that after stopping at the stoplight at. the Monkhouse exit of the

interstate, he heard a loud boom and saw a flash. (R.p 958). Todd Scruggs said he looked over

and Mark Cornett had been shot and he further stated that Mr. Magluilo had shot him. After

Lacey Smith started running, Todd Scruggs said he ran after her and Mr. Magluilo was

following. He said that he stopped and told Mr. Magluilo to run and Magluilo ran the other

direction. Todd Scrugss also gave a statement to police after meeting his local attorney. He was

released after talking with detectives. Mr. Magluilo was later arrested, charged with and

subsequently convicted of second degree murder.

4

SFEOALAND IMPORTANT REASONS CERTIORARI SHOTTED BE GRANTED:

COMPLIANCE WITH U.S. SUPREME COURT RULE 10

Mr. Maghiilo contends, the Louisiana Fourtii Circuit Court of Appeals and Louisiana

Supreme Court erred in upholding the convictions and sentences in this case. This error is in

direct conflict with jurisprudence set by this Honorable Court.

FEDERAL ISSUES RAISED IN LOWER COURTS

The evidence in this case is insufficient to support the jury verdict of second degree murder. The

evidence presented at trial fails to show that Dylan Magluilo is guilty of the second degree

murder of Mark Cornett pursuant to the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment to the United States

Cou^itutiou.

INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF SECOND DEGREE MURDER

Louisiana's Second Degree Murder Statute (LSA-R.S. 14:30.1) occurs when the offender

has the specific intent to kill or to inflict great bodily harm. Meanwhile, the Fifth Amendment to

the United States Constitutions provides inter alia that, “...no person shall be deprived of life,

liberty, or property without due process of law.” The Fourteenth Amendment, imposes the same

due process requirem ent on the States Implicit in the due process clause is the protection of an

accused against conviction except upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every fact, necessary

to constitute the crime with which he is charged In Re WinsMp, 397 U.S. 358, 90 S.Ct. 1068,25

L.EcL2d 368 (1970); Jackson v. Mrginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed2d 560 (1979).

An accused is entitled to an appellate review of the evidence to the extent that it supports a

finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

In State v. Bellamy, 599 So.2d 326 (La. App. 2 Cir.), writ denied, 605 So.2d 1089 (1992),

Louisiana formulated a constitutional standard for testing the sufficiency of the evidence as

enunciated in Jackson, supra which requires that a conviction be based upon proof sufficient for

5

any rational trier of fact, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, to

find the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. This standard is now

legislatively embodied in LaX'.Cr.P. ait. 821 and to convict, the State must prove each element of

the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. LaC.CrF. art 821. It is applicable in cases involving both

direct and circumstantial evidence. State v. Cotton, 634 So. 2d 937 (La. App. 2 Cir. 1994). All

evidence must be sufficient to satisfy a rational juror that the defendant is guilty beyond a

reasonable doubt.

ft is acknowledged that it is not the function of the appellate comt to reevaluate the

credibility of witnesses and then proceed to overturn factual determinations of guilt State v.

Richardson, 425 So.2d 1228 (La. 1983); State v. lewis, 577 So.2d 799 (La. App. 2 Cir. 1991).

Absent internal contradictions or irreconcilable conflict with physical evidence, one witness'

testimony, ifbelieved by the trier of fad, is sufficient support for the requisite factual conclusion.

State v. Wiltcher, 41,981 (La. App. 2 Cir. 5/9/07), 956. So.2d 769; State v. Bunt, 40,480 (La. App.

2 Cir. 1/27/06), 921 So.2d 219, writ denied, 2006-1083 (La. 11/9/06), 941 So.2d 35.

In this case, the lower courts acknowledged internal contradictions and irreconcilable

conflicts while disregarding holdings from this Honorable Court. The Second Circuit Court of

Appeals, referenced testimony from various witnesses revealing that both Lacey Smith and Todd

Scruggs had been in much prior trouble. One of Todd Scruggs' prior offenses was an armed

robbery. (Rec. p. 950). Both were drug users and had narcotic offenses in their past criminal

history. Mark Cornett was also heavily involved in dugs. The testimony of the only two people

at the incident, Todd Scruggs and Lacey Smith, is suspect and self serving. Either one could have

just as easily shot. Mark Cornett, as they both allege Mr. Magluilo did. Many of the State's

6

witnesses' testimony made no sense or was conflicting with evidence. A gun, a .9 millimeter Hipoint piston, was found and after being tested and compared with the bullet from Mark Cornett's

head, it was determined that this was the gun used to shoot. Mark Cornett. (Rec. p. 1236).

However, although there was DNA other than Mr. Maghiiio's, he DNA was not found on the

pistol. (Rec. pp. 1215-16). There were no fingerprints linking this shooting with Dylan Magluilo.

More troubling is the fact that, a Chase Anderson was linked was forensically linked to the .9

millimeter handgun. The State simply chose to disregard any further investigation and base their

case on the testimony of known and admitted felons who could have easily committed the

murder and blame Mr. Magluilo.

Mr. Magluilo raised this claim in the Louisiana Second Circuit Court of Appeal and on

Certiorari in the Louisiana Supreme Court. Both Courts, ignored standards set forth by this

Honorable Court in, Jackson and is Re Winshtp.

Mr. Magluilo avers that, when a conviction is reversed for insufficient evidence, the

double jeopardy provisions of Article 1, §15 of the Louisiana Constitution and the Fifth and

Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution prohibits a retrial of the defendant

Burks v. United States1437 U.S, 1, 98 S.Ct 2141,576 L.Ed.2d 1 (1978); State v. Williams, 423

So. 2d 1048 (La 1982). Consequently, Dylan Magluilo should be ordered discharged.

7

f'ONf'TITKION

For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner prays that a writ of certiorari issue to review the

judgment of the Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana m its decision denying Dylan

Magluilo’s Application for Writ of Certiorari. Mr. Magluilo, convicted of second degree murder

violates the Due Process Clause. This Honorable Court should exercise its discretion and grant a

writ of certiorari to correct the substantial injustice caused Dylan Magluilo.

Respectfully submitted:

June

2019

agluilo

Dyl

DOCT#725838

Camp C, Wolf-2

Louisiana State Prison

Angola, LA 70712

8