Hughes v. Vannoy

Filing 41

RULING AND ORDER granting 26 Emergency Motion for Release From Custody. FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner shall be placed on home confinement and shall be required to wear an ankle monitor. FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner shall have no contact with Amy Hughes as set forth herein. Signed by Judge Brian A. Jackson on 5/20/2020. (SWE)

Case 3:16-cv-00770-BAJ-RLB

Document 41

05/21/20 Page 1 of 6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
GEORGE HUGHES

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS
DARREL VANNOY, ET AL.

NO.:16-00770-BAJ-RLB

RULING AND ORDER
Before the Court is Petitioner George Hughes’s Emergency Motion for
Release from Custody (Doc. 26). Petitioner argues that he is entitled to release
pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 23(c). Petitioner further argues that
he should be released because of his advanced age, poor health, and susceptibility to
the COVID-19 virus. Petitioner contends that because the State is seeking review of
the Court’s grant of his habeas motion, the Court may grant Petitioner release on his
own recognizance, or on surety, pending the State’s appeal of this matter. The State
filed an opposition to the motion (Doc. 39), arguing that all factors weigh against
Petitioner’s release. The State requests, in the alternative, that Petitioner remain in
home incarceration and that an ankle monitor be installed, should he be released.
I.

BACKGROUND
Petitioner is a state prisoner incarcerated at the Louisiana State Penitentiary.

He is currently serving a life sentence. After a trial by jury conducted in June 2006,
Petitioner was found guilty of second-degree murder of his daughter’s boyfriend, who
was also the father of her child. Petitioner was sentenced to life at hard labor without
1

Case 3:16-cv-00770-BAJ-RLB

Document 41

05/21/20 Page 2 of 6

the benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence. In 2007, Petitioner’s
conviction and sentence were affirmed on appeal and his writs were denied by the
Louisiana Supreme Court in January of 2008. After the denial of his application for
post-conviction relief in 2015, Petitioner filed an application for habeas corpus relief
the following year, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. (See Doc. 12 at p. 3-4).
The Magistrate Judge recommended that Petitioner’s habeas corpus
application be granted and that the Nineteenth Judicial District Court for the Parish
of East Baton Rouge be directed to retry Petitioner. (Doc. 12). The Court adopted the
Magistrate Judge’s recommendation. (Doc. 17). The State filed a notice of appeal of
the decision on November 25, 2019. Petitioner filed the instant motion on
April 2, 2020, seeking release while the appeal is under review.
II.

LEGAL STANDARD
Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 23 addresses the custody or release of a

prisoner in a habeas corpus proceeding. Subsection (c) provides that while a decision
ordering the release of a prisoner is under review, the prisoner must be released on
personal recognizance, with or without surety, unless the court rendering the decision
orders otherwise. Rule 23(c) creates a presumption favoring release of a successful
habeas petitioner pending appeal; however, this presumption may be overcome if so
indicated by the traditional stay factors. Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 771
(1987). The stay factors are (1) whether the applicant has made a strong showing that
he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether the applicant will be irreparably
injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure the

2

Case 3:16-cv-00770-BAJ-RLB

Document 41

05/21/20 Page 3 of 6

other parties interested in the proceeding; and (4) where the public interest lies. Id.
at 776; see also Woodfox v. Cain, 305 Fed.Appx. 179, 181 (5th Cir. 2008). If
necessitated by the circumstances, the Court may also give consideration to factors
such as (1) the possibility of the prisoner’s flight; (2) the risk that the prisoner will
pose a danger to the public if released; (3) the State’s interest in continuing custody
and rehabilitation pending a final determination on appeal; and (4) the prisoner’s
substantial interest in release pending appeal. Id. A prisoner should remain in
custody if the State can “demonstrate a substantial case on the merits” and the other
factors militate against release. Woodfox, 305 Fed.Appx at 181 (citing O’Bryan v.
Estelle, 691 F.2d 706, 708 (5th Cir. 1982)).
III.

DISCUSSION
Here, the State has failed to show a “strong likelihood of success on appeal,” or

even “demonstrate a substantial case on the merits,” that would weigh in favor of
“continued custody.” Braunskill, 481 U.S. at 778. The Court granted Petitioner’s
habeas petition due to its finding that trial counsel’s decision to forego the
investigation and interview of Sandra Allen prejudiced Petitioner’s defense and that
there is a reasonable probability that the result of the proceeding would have been
different. (See Doc. 12). Allen was the sole witness that could have been considered
disinterested in the outcome of the case. She also changed her testimony days before
trial. Her inconsistent testimony had the effect of giving credence to the inconsistent
testimony of another witness who testified against Petitioner. Had trial counsel
interviewed Allen, he would have been prepared to confront her about her changed

3

Case 3:16-cv-00770-BAJ-RLB

Document 41

05/21/20 Page 4 of 6

testimony and could have mitigated the damage of her testimony. The Court cited
Koon v. Cain, 277 Fed.Appx. 381 (5th Circ. 2008) in support of its findings. In Koon,
defense counsel made errors in his performance, including the failure to interview
the lone eyewitness, which prejudiced the defendant. After finding that counsel’s
performance was deficient, the Fifth Circuit concluded that there was a reasonable
probability that the jury would have convicted the defendant of a lesser offense if
counsel’s performance had not been deficient.
Also, the State cannot show irreparable injury if Petitioner is released because
“[a] prisoner whose conviction is reversed by this Court need not go free if he is in fact
guilty, for [the state] may indict and try him again by the procedure which conforms
to constitutional requirements.” Hill v. Texas, 316 U.S. 400, 406 (1942).
With regard to the third and fourth traditional stay factors, whether issuance
of the stay will substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceeding and
where the public interest lies, the State argues that Petitioner’s crime involved the
murder of his daughter’s boyfriend, Drew Hawkins, who was also the father of her
child. Amy Hughes, Petitioner’s daughter, testified against Petitioner at trial.
Ms. Hughes still resides in the area and has expressed fear for her safety if Petitioner
is released. However, if released, Petitioner may reside either with his wife or his
mother, neither of whom live with Ms. Hughes. In fact, Petitioner’s family members
have not seen or contacted Ms. Hughes or the Hawkins family since the trial 14 years
ago, and they have no intention to contact Ms. Hughes or the Hawkins family should
Petitioner be released. (Doc. 39 at p. 11). The Court also notes that Petitioner has had

4

Case 3:16-cv-00770-BAJ-RLB

Document 41

05/21/20 Page 5 of 6

only one disciplinary infraction issued against him in the 14 years he has been in the
custody of the Department of Corrections, and that he poses an extremely low risk of
recidivism. The official risk assessment tool utilized by the Department of Corrections
is known as LARNA.1 A score of 0 through 7 indicates that an individual has a low
risk of recidivism. Petitioner’s official LARNA score is -4. (Doc. 26-1, at p. 3).
On the other side of the ledger, Petitioner has a significant interest in his
release. Braunskill, 481 U.S. at 778. He has spent 14 years in prison under a
constitutionally defective conviction and sentence. In addition, Petitioner is at risk of
severe infection should he contact COVID-19. He is 64 years old, diabetic, has high
blood pressure, and recently suffered a stroke. The State has not offered any evidence
to suggest that Petitioner is a flight risk.
Lastly, the State argues that its interest in keeping Petitioner in custody is
strong because Petitioner was convicted of a serious offense and received a life
sentence. Id. at 777 ([T]he State’s interest “will be strongest where the remaining
portion of the sentence to be served is long, and weakest where there is little of the
sentence remaining to be served.”). Id. However, Petitioner has spent 14 years in
prison and is 64 years old. At this juncture, it is unclear whether the time remaining
on his life sentence is more or less than what he has already spent in prison.

The Louisiana Risk Needs Assessment is a tool utilized by the Louisiana Department of Corrections
to identify an individual’s likelihood of reoffending. It is used to inform decisions regarding supervision
levels for those on probation and parole. See Louisiana Justice Reinvestment Task Force Report and
Recommendations 2017, www.lasc.org.

1

5

Case 3:16-cv-00770-BAJ-RLB

IV.

Document 41

05/21/20 Page 6 of 6

CONCLUSION
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s Emergency Motion for Release from

Custody (Doc. 26) is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner shall be placed on home
confinement and shall be required to wear an ankle monitor.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner shall have no contact with Amy
Hughes, her children, friends, or acquaintances, and that Petitioner and any
members of Petitioner’s family shall have no contact with Amy Hughes and the
Hawkins family.
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, this 20th day of May, 2020

_____________________________________
JUDGE BRIAN A. JACKSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

6