State ex rel. Armand v. State

177 So. 3d 704, 2015 La. LEXIS 2277
CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana
DecidedOctober 23, 2015
DocketNo. 15-KH-0016
StatusPublished

This text of 177 So. 3d 704 (State ex rel. Armand v. State) 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
State ex rel. Armand v. State, 177 So. 3d 704, 2015 La. LEXIS 2277 (La. 2015).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

| T Denied. Relator fails to show he was denied the effective assistance of counsel during plea negotiations under the standard of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).

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 ap[705]*705plies, relator has exhausted his right to state collateral review.

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

Related

Strickland v. Washington
466 U.S. 668 (Supreme Court, 1984)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
177 So. 3d 704, 2015 La. LEXIS 2277, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-armand-v-state-la-2015.