State ex rel. Dussett v. State

Supreme Court of Louisiana

State ex rel. Dussett v. State

194 So. 3d 599, 2016 La. LEXIS 1508, 2016 WL 3525902

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedJune 17, 2016

DocketNo. 2015-KH-1332

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 194 So. 3d 599 (State ex rel. Dussett 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. Dussett v. State, 194 So. 3d 599, 2016 La. LEXIS 1508, 2016 WL 3525902 (La. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

h Denied. Relator fails to show he received ineffective assistance of counsel under the standard of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). Relator’s remaining claims are repetitive and/or unsupported. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.2; La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4. We attach hereto and make a hereof the District Court’s written reasons for denying relator’s application.

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 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 he can show that one of the narrow exceptions authorizing the filing of a successive application applies, relator has |2exhausted 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.

h Denied. Relator fails to show he received ineffective assistance of counsel under the standard of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). Relator’s remaining claims are repetitive and/or unsupported. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.2; La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4. We attach hereto and make a hereof the District Court’s written reasons for denying relator’s application.

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 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 he can show that one of the narrow exceptions authorizing the filing of a successive application applies, relator has |2exhausted 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)

194 So. 3d 599, 2016 La. LEXIS 1508, 2016 WL 3525902, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-dussett-v-state-la-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack