State ex rel. Bruce v. State

Supreme Court of Louisiana

State ex rel. Bruce v. State

190 So. 3d 1177, 2016 WL 2879922, 2016 La. LEXIS 1109

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedMay 13, 2016

DocketNo. 2015-KH-1131

StatusPublished

This text of 190 So. 3d 1177 (State ex rel. Bruce 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. Bruce v. State, 190 So. 3d 1177, 2016 WL 2879922, 2016 La. LEXIS 1109 (La. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

11 Denied. Relator’s claim concerning the allegedly defective bill of information is repetitive. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4. In addition, relator’s sentencing claims are not cognizable on collateral review. La. C.Cr.P. art. 930.3; State ex rel. Melinie v. State, 93-1380 (La.1/12/96), 665 So.2d 1172; see also State v. Cotton, 09-2397 (La.10/15/10), 45 So.3d 1030. We attach hereto and make a part hereof the District Court’s written reasons denying relator’s application.

Relator has now fully litigated two applications 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.

| a ATTACHMENT

[1178]*1178[[Image here]]

[1179]*1179[[Image here]]

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

PER CURIAM.

11 Denied. Relator’s claim concerning the allegedly defective bill of information is repetitive. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4. In addition, relator’s sentencing claims are not cognizable on collateral review. La. C.Cr.P. art. 930.3; State ex rel. Melinie v. State, 93-1380 (La.1/12/96), 665 So.2d 1172; see also State v. Cotton, 09-2397 (La.10/15/10), 45 So.3d 1030. We attach hereto and make a part hereof the District Court’s written reasons denying relator’s application.

Relator has now fully litigated two applications 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.

| a ATTACHMENT

[1178]*1178[[Image here]]

[1179]*1179[[Image here]]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

190 So. 3d 1177, 2016 WL 2879922, 2016 La. LEXIS 1109, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-bruce-v-state-la-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack