Whether the rights afforded criminal defendants in Ramos apply retroactively to a case on direct review of the sentence only, given Griffith's holding

QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW The question before this court is as follows: Whether the rights afforded criminal defendants in Ramos apply retroactively to a case on direct review of the sentence only, given Griffith’s holding that new rules for the conduct of criminal prosecutions be applied retroactively to all state “cases pending on direct review or not yet final.” Although the Louisiana Supreme Court denied Kyran Javon Vaughn’s writ of certiorari in 2019 that sought to reverse his 10-2 conviction, it remanded the case to the district court to consider a new sentence. State v. Vaughn, 2018-01750 (La. 11/25/19), ___— So.3d __, App. 30. As Vaughn languished in jail, this court ruled in Ramos v. Louisiana, ___ U.S. __, 140 S.Ct. 1390, 206 L.Ed.2d 583 (2020), that non-unanimous convictions, which persisted in Louisiana and Oregon, are unconstitutional. Vaughn was later re-sentenced to a lesser term. Thereafter, he filed a direct appeal, in part because his case remained in the “direct review pipeline” under Griffith v. Kentucky, 479 U.S. 314, 107 S.Ct. 708, 93 L.Ed.2d 649 (1987), and was entitled to a new trial. The state appellate court held Vaughn was entitled to a new trial under Ramos and Griffith. State v. Vaughn, 2021-0521, p. 7 (La. App. 1 Cir. 12/30/21) (unreported). App. 20. On granting the state’s writ of certiorari, the Louisiana Supreme Court reversed, ii QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW — Continued holding 4-3 that Vaughn’s conviction was final and, while he had the right to appeal imposition of a new sentence, he had no right to further challenge the conviction or benefit from the Ramos decision. State v. Vaughn, 2022-00214 (La. 05/05/23), __ So.8d __, App. 1. The court denied rehearing. App. 19.