State ex rel. Burton v. State

Supreme Court of Louisiana

State ex rel. Burton v. State

261 So. 3d 769

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedJanuary 14, 2019

DocketNo. 2017-KH-1915

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 261 So. 3d 769 (State ex rel. Burton 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. Burton v. State, 261 So. 3d 769 (La. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Denied. Relator is not entitled to an out-of-time appeal. See State v. Counterman , 475 So.2d 336 (La. 1985). By pleading guilty unconditionally, he waived all non-jurisdictional defects in the proceedings leading to his conviction. State v. Crosby , 338 So.2d 584, 586 (La. 1976). Relator also fails to show that 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).

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

PER CURIAM:

Denied. Relator is not entitled to an out-of-time appeal. See State v. Counterman , 475 So.2d 336 (La. 1985). By pleading guilty unconditionally, he waived all non-jurisdictional defects in the proceedings leading to his conviction. State v. Crosby , 338 So.2d 584, 586 (La. 1976). Relator also fails to show that 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).

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

261 So. 3d 769, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-burton-v-state-la-2019.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack