Bruce v. Vannoy

265 So. 3d 756
CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana
DecidedMarch 18, 2019
DocketNo. 2018-KP-1422
StatusPublished

This text of 265 So. 3d 756 (Bruce v. Vannoy) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Louisiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Bruce v. Vannoy, 265 So. 3d 756 (La. 2019).

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Denied. Relator fails to show he was denied access to the courts by an arbitrary and unjustified enforcement of the uniform rules governing the filing of applications in the court of appeal, and thus shows no error in the court of appeal's denial of writs on technical grounds. La.C.Cr.P. art. 912.1(C).

Relator has now fully litigated his application for post-conviction relief in state court. Similar to federal habeas relief, see 28 U.S.C. § 2244, Louisiana post-conviction procedure envisions the filing of a second or successive application only under the narrow circumstances provided in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4 and within the limitations period as set out in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8. Notably, the legislature in 2013 La. Acts 251 amended that article to make the procedural bars against successive filings mandatory. Relator's claims have now been fully litigated in accord with La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.6, and this denial is final. Hereafter, unless he can show that one of the narrow exceptions authorizing the filing of a successive application applies, relator has exhausted his right to state collateral review. The district court is ordered to record a minute entry consistent with this per curiam.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Finality of determination
28 U.S.C. § 2244

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
265 So. 3d 756, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bruce-v-vannoy-la-2019.