State ex rel. Carmouche v. State

Supreme Court of Louisiana

State ex rel. Carmouche v. State

178 So. 3d 133, 2015 La. LEXIS 2294, 2015 WL 6681089

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedOctober 30, 2015

DocketNo. 2014-KH-2657

StatusPublished

This text of 178 So. 3d 133 (State ex rel. Carmouche 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. Carmouche v. State, 178 So. 3d 133, 2015 La. LEXIS 2294, 2015 WL 6681089 (La. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

11Denied. Relator’s- allegations of prose-cutorial misconduct are unsupported. See La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.2.

Relator has now fully litigated his application for post-conviction relief in state court. Similar to federal habeas relief, see [134]*13428 U.S.O. § 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 La.C,Cr.P. art. 930.4 to make the procedural bars against successive filings mandatory. Relator’s claims have now been fully litigated -in state collateral proceedings in accord with La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.6, and this denial is •final. Hereafter, unless relator 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.

HUGHES, J., would grant in part.

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

PER CURIAM.

11Denied. Relator’s- allegations of prose-cutorial misconduct are unsupported. See La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.2.

Relator has now fully litigated his application for post-conviction relief in state court. Similar to federal habeas relief, see [134]*13428 U.S.O. § 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 La.C,Cr.P. art. 930.4 to make the procedural bars against successive filings mandatory. Relator’s claims have now been fully litigated -in state collateral proceedings in accord with La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.6, and this denial is •final. Hereafter, unless relator 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.

HUGHES, J., would grant in part.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

178 So. 3d 133, 2015 La. LEXIS 2294, 2015 WL 6681089, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-carmouche-v-state-la-2015.