Pierre v. Vannoy et al

Filing 40

ORDER: IT IS ORDERED that 31 Motion to Stay is DENIED. The 34 and 36 Motions for Release On Personal Recognizance are DENIED AS MOOT. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 7/25/2017. (ajn)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
ALBERT NORMAN PIERRE, SR.

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO. 16-1336

DARREL VANNOY

SECTION “A”(2)
ORDER

On May 23, 2017, the Court issued a judgment in favor of Petitioner Albert Norman
Pierre, Sr. granting him a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The Court
vacated the judgment of conviction and sentence and ordered that Albert Norman Pierre,
Sr. be released from custody unless the State retried him within 120 days of the entry of
this Court’s judgment. (Rec. Doc. 21).
The State has filed a Motion to Stay (Rec. Doc. 31) the execution of the judgment
pending its appeal. The State contends that the four factors identified in Hilton v.
Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770 (1987), militate in favor of maintaining Pierre in custody until the
Fifth Circuit considers the State’s appeal. In particular, the State stresses its belief that it
will prevail on appeal. Pierre meanwhile has filed a Motion for Release on Personal
Recognizance (Rec. Docs. 34 & 36).
The State’s request for a stay pending appeal is denied. The writ that the Court
granted is a conditional one because Pierre will be retried on the same indictment. The
state criminal justice system may therefore detain Pierre on the underlying indictment in
the same manner that he was subject to detention before his conviction, and the state
court may impose whatever conditions it believes necessary to secure Pierre’s presence
for trial. What the State cannot do, however, is rely upon the now vacated conviction as
Page 1 of 2

a basis for denying bond, whether actually or constructively.1
As to the Respondent’s treatment of the Hilton factors, the Court finds no merit
whatsoever to the contention that Pierre presents a potential danger to the public. Pierre’s
prior criminal history belies that assertion, and the Court notes that Pierre was not a young
man when he was charged in this case. Further, the Court has reviewed the record on
file from the criminal case and the argument pertaining to other inappropriate incidents
with minor children is greatly overstated.
In sum, the Court is not persuaded that the State has overcome the presumption
of release implicit in Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 23(c), insofar as the State seeks
a stay from this Court.
Accordingly, and for the foregoing reasons;
IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Stay (Rec. Doc. 31) filed by Respondent is
DENIED. The Motion for Release on Personal Recognizance (Rec. Docs. 34 & 36)
filed by Petitioner is DENIED as moot.
July 25, 2017

________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

It is the Court’s understanding that Pierre was released on a bond of $200,000 pending his
original trial.
1

Page 2 of 2