Jones v. Cain

• Decision Date: 08 October 2014
• Docket Number: No. 2014–K–0226.,2014–K–0226.
• Citation: 151 So.3d 781
• Parties: Robert JONES v. Burl CAIN, Warden.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US

151 So.3d 781

Robert JONES

v.Burl CAIN, Warden.

No. 2014–K–0226.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.

Oct. 8, 2014.

Emily Maw, Richard Davis, New Orleans, LA, for Relator, Robert Jones.

Leon A. Cannizzaro, Jr., District Attorney, Andrew W. Pickett, Assistant District Attorney, New Orleans, LA, for Respondent, Burl Cain Warden/State of Louisiana.

(Court composed of Judge DENNIS R. BAGNERIS, SR., Judge MAX N. TOBIAS, JR., Judge MADELEINE M. LANDRIEU ).

Opinion

MAX N. TOBIAS, JR., Judge.

The relator, Robert Jones, seeks review of the 24 January 2014 ruling that denied his application for post-conviction relief. We granted a writ of certiorari, ordered the record, briefing, and oral argument. For the reasons that follow, we grant Mr. Jones relief.

I.STATEMENT OF THE CASE

On 11 June 1992, the state obtained an indictment charging Robert Jones (“Robert” or “the relator”)¹ with one count of aggravated rape, one count of second degree kidnapping, one count of aggravated crime against nature, and three counts of armed robbery, all arising out of an incident that occurred on 6 April 1992.² On 12 March 1996, a jury found Robert guilty as charged on these six counts. The court subsequently sentenced Robert to life imprisonment without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence as to the rape conviction and twenty-five years at hard labor without benefits on each of the remaining counts, the sentences to run concurrently. On appeal, this court affirmed his convictions but vacated his crime against nature sentence, finding it to be illegally harsh. This court affirmed his remaining sentences and the Supreme Court denied the state's application for review. State v. Jones, 96–2453, unpub. (La.App. 4 Cir. 12/10/97), 704 So.2d 994 (Table), writ denied, 98–0194 (La.5/15/98), 719 So.2d 460. On remand, the trial court resentenced Robert on the crime against nature count to serve fifteen years at hard labor without benefits.

In 2000, Robert filed his first application for post-conviction relief, which the trial court denied. This court denied Robert's writ application from that ruling. State v. Jones, 00–0489, unpub. (La.App. 4 Cir. 3/21/00). Robert then filed various pleadings in the trial court concerning DNA testing of evidence. This court ordered a hearing in the matter in 2002. State v. Jones, 02–2159, unpub. (La.App. 4 Cir. 11/14/02).

In 2006, new counsel for Robert filed a second application for post-conviction relief, alleging newly-discovered evidence. The trial court denied the application in January 2008 and granted Robert an “appeal” from its ruling. On review, this court converted the “appeal” to an application for supervisory writ of review, granted the writ, and affirmed the trial court's ruling; the Supreme Court denied review. State v. Jones, unpub. 08–0516 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2/11/09), 3 So.3d 92 (Table), writ denied, 09–1230 (La.1/29/10), 25 So.3d 830.

On 11 August 2010, new counsel for Robert filed his latest application for post-conviction relief. Without being ordered by the trial court, the state filed its procedural objections on 4 November 2010. The next day, defense counsel filed various pleadings, including a supplement to the post-conviction application. The court held a hearing on the application on 14 December 2010, at the conclusion of which the court took the matter under advisement. The court denied the application without prejudice on 21 January 2011 on procedural grounds, reserving to Robert the right to re-urge his application if he was able to find trial counsel from his 1996 trial. This court denied Robert's writ application from this ruling and the Supreme Court declined review. State v. Jones, 11–0241, unpub. (La.App. 4 Cir. 5/12/11), writ denied, 11–1223 (La.3/23/12), 84 So.3d 569.

Robert ultimately discovered his trial counsel's whereabouts, and the court held a hearing on 17 December 2012, at which trial counsel, Curklin Atkins, testified.

Robert offered more evidence. On 22 February 2013, the court reversed its earlier ruling that had denied the post-conviction application on procedural grounds, and granted an evidentiary hearing on the merits. The state objected and sought relief, but this court denied the state's writ application and once again the Supreme Court declined review of the matter. State v. Jones, 13–0338, unpub. (La.App. 4 Cir. 4/11/13), writ denied, 13–0584 (La.4/12/13), 111 So.3d 1021.

After the issuance of various subpoenas and subpoenas duces tecum, the court heard the matter on 26 September 2013 and 8 October 2013. On 24 January 2014, the court denied the application for post-conviction relief. Robert objected and this timely writ application ensued.

II.FACTS

Robert was convicted in this case of crimes that arose out of an incident in the French Quarter that occurred on 6 April 1992: the aggravated rape, forcible kidnapping, aggravated crime against nature, and armed robbery of T.P.,³ as well as the armed robberies of her husband, L.J., and her friend, H.T. Robert contends that he is innocent of the charges, blaming the crimes on Lester Jones (“Lester”). Within a month of the incident involved in this case, several other armed robberies and one murder (that of Julie Stott on 14 April 1992), also occurred in or near the French Quarter, and the same vehicle was identified as having been used in this case and in the other cases.

In addition to the offenses charged in this case, Robert was also charged with the murder of Ms. Stott and with two armed robberies that occurred minutes before her murder. He subsequently pled guilty in district court case number 357–917 to manslaughter in Ms. Stott's death and the armed robberies of Bethany Acosta and Patrick Van Hoorebeek, which occurred on the same night as Ms. Stott's murder.⁴

The vehicle identified in the present case was owned by Lester, no relation to Robert, who was charged in Ms. Stott's murder and in various other armed robberies that occurred in or near the French Quarter around the same time. Lester was convicted of Ms. Stott's murder, and this court in an unpublished opinion affirmed his conviction and sentence. State v. Jones, 96–1433, unpub. (La.App. 4 Cir. 11/26/97), 704 So.2d 993 (Table). This court also affirmed Lester's convictions and sentences for the armed robberies of Theresa McKay and Latrice Robinson, both of which occurred within hours after Ms. Stott's murder. State v. Jones, 94–0071 (La.App. 4 Cir. 3/29/95), 653 So.2d 746. The state apparently never charged Lester with the robberies of Lorrell Woodfork and Donna Freeman, which occurred five nights later, after Robert was arrested.

The following fact summary of the present case is taken from this court's unpublished opinion in Robert's appeal:

On the evening of April 6, 1992, a group of friends consisting of three males and three females took a walk through the French Quarter to the river. Two of the males had a disagreement and left early. As the remaining four approached Rampart Street on their way home, a man approached them, pulled out a gun, and told them to move to the side. One of the females was walking up ahead and was not stopped. The others were ordered to walk with the perpetrator up and down Rampart Street. At one point, the perpetrator made them lie face down and give him their money and their jewelry, which all three did. After they got up, the perpetrator ordered them to walk back into the French Quarter. They walked as couples, with the perpetrator in the back with one of the females and the male and the other female up ahead. When the female in front started to walk too fast, the perpetrator clicked the gun and told her to slow down.

After they walked as couples for awhile, the perpetrator ordered the two in front to take off their clothes and get under a car, which they did. When the female walking with the perpetrator started to take off her clothes, he told her not to do that because she was coming with him. He told the couple under the car to stay there and had the other female take their clothes and drop them on the corner. The perpetrator then walked with the female to a burgundy colored car. After a few minutes, the male robbery victim got out from under the car, found the clothes, put his on and brought the female's clothes to her. They then started yelling for the other female and rode around with the police trying to find her.

Meanwhile, the perpetrator ordered the abducted female into the burgundy car. He drove her into the Desire Housing Project. The victim recognized the area and was thinking of the people she knew there who would help her if she could get away. The perpetrator took the victim to an abandoned building where he ordered her to take off her clothes. He then raped her anally, orally and vaginally. He threw her clothes out the window. He then ordered her to get into a crawl space under another building in the project. The victim found some trash bags under there. She intended to empty one of them to cover herself while she looked for help. When she emptied one of the bags, she found a pair of pants and a shirt, which she put on. She then slowly walked past the perpetrator, who was sitting in the car expecting the victim to come out screaming and naked.

The victim walked to the apartment which had been occupied by her grandmother's friend. That woman no longer lived there, but her daughter let the victim inside. The victim took a bath and called her sister. The resident of the apartment called the victim's uncle, who came for her. He called the police who took the victim to Charity Hospital, where she was given a sexual assault examination. The results of the examination were consistent with the victim's history of recent vaginal intercourse and forced anal intercourse. The pathologist's testimony further indicated that seminal fluid was found in the victim's vagina. After the examination, the investigating officer took the victim back to the scene of the sexual offenses, and the victim identified her clothes

...