State ex rel. Cormier v. State

Supreme Court of Louisiana

State ex rel. Cormier v. State

731 So. 2d 274, 1998 La. LEXIS 3874, 1998 WL 960152

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedDecember 18, 1998

DocketNo. 98-KH-2111

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 731 So. 2d 274 (State ex rel. Cormier 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. Cormier v. State, 731 So. 2d 274, 1998 La. LEXIS 3874, 1998 WL 960152 (La. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

IN RE: Cormier, Gregory; — Plaintiffs); Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writ; Parish of Calcasieu 14th Judicial District Court Div. “E” Number 14578-82; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Numbers KW98-0331, KW97-0676.

Writ granted in part; otherwise denied; case remanded to the district court. The district court did not comply with this Court’s earlier order, see State ex rel. Cormier v. State, 95-2208 (La.10/4/96), 680 So.2d 1168, when it rejected six of relator’s claims because of his failure to seek exculpatory material more diligently. See also Carlin v. Cain, 97-2390 (La.3/13/98), 706 So.2d 968; State ex rel. Medford v. Whitley, 95-1187 (La.1/26/96), 666 So.2d 652; State ex rel. Winn v. State, 95-0898 (La.10/2/96), 685 So.2d 104. We also note that the discovery of new evidence excepting a claim from the prescriptive period of La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8 would necessarily except a claim from the repetitiveness bars of La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4 and the district court thus abused its discretion in defaulting another of relator’s claims as repetitive. Accordingly, the case is remanded to the district court for prompt compliance as to all of relator’s claims with the directives and principles set out in Cormier supra, [275]*275and Cain, supra. In all other respects, the application is denied.

JOHNSON, J. not on panel.

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

IN RE: Cormier, Gregory; — Plaintiffs); Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writ; Parish of Calcasieu 14th Judicial District Court Div. “E” Number 14578-82; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Numbers KW98-0331, KW97-0676.

Writ granted in part; otherwise denied; case remanded to the district court. The district court did not comply with this Court’s earlier order, see State ex rel. Cormier v. State, 95-2208 (La.10/4/96), 680 So.2d 1168, when it rejected six of relator’s claims because of his failure to seek exculpatory material more diligently. See also Carlin v. Cain, 97-2390 (La.3/13/98), 706 So.2d 968; State ex rel. Medford v. Whitley, 95-1187 (La.1/26/96), 666 So.2d 652; State ex rel. Winn v. State, 95-0898 (La.10/2/96), 685 So.2d 104. We also note that the discovery of new evidence excepting a claim from the prescriptive period of La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8 would necessarily except a claim from the repetitiveness bars of La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4 and the district court thus abused its discretion in defaulting another of relator’s claims as repetitive. Accordingly, the case is remanded to the district court for prompt compliance as to all of relator’s claims with the directives and principles set out in Cormier supra, [275]*275and Cain, supra. In all other respects, the application is denied.

JOHNSON, J. not on panel.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

731 So. 2d 274, 1998 La. LEXIS 3874, 1998 WL 960152, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-cormier-v-state-la-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack