State ex rel. Cerda-Anima v. State

Supreme Court of Louisiana

State ex rel. Cerda-Anima v. State

177 So. 3d 1056, 2015 La. LEXIS 2259, 2015 WL 6443775

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedOctober 23, 2015

DocketNo. 2014-KH-2625

StatusPublished

This text of 177 So. 3d 1056 (State ex rel. Cerda-Anima 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. Cerda-Anima v. State, 177 So. 3d 1056, 2015 La. LEXIS 2259, 2015 WL 6443775 (La. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

| denied. Relator does not show that the district court erred when it determined that relator’s claims concerning alleged trial errors were procedurally barred pursuant to La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4(B). See Carlin v. Cain, 97-2390 (La.3/13/98), 706 So.2d 968. Additionally, relator fails- to demonstrate he received ineffective assistance of counsel under the standard set out in 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 applies, 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

PER CURIAM.

| denied. Relator does not show that the district court erred when it determined that relator’s claims concerning alleged trial errors were procedurally barred pursuant to La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4(B). See Carlin v. Cain, 97-2390 (La.3/13/98), 706 So.2d 968. Additionally, relator fails- to demonstrate he received ineffective assistance of counsel under the standard set out in 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 applies, relator has exhausted his right to state collateral review.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

177 So. 3d 1056, 2015 La. LEXIS 2259, 2015 WL 6443775, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-cerda-anima-v-state-la-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack