State ex rel. Edwards v. State

Supreme Court of Louisiana

State ex rel. Edwards v. State

184 So. 3d 1281, 2016 La. LEXIS 361, 2016 WL 783244

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedFebruary 26, 2016

DocketNo. 2015-KH-2336

StatusPublished

This text of 184 So. 3d 1281 (State ex rel. Edwards 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. Edwards v. State, 184 So. 3d 1281, 2016 La. LEXIS 361, 2016 WL 783244 (La. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

| ^Denied. Relator does not identify an illegal term in his sentence, and therefore, his filing is properly construed as an application for post-conviction relief. See State v. Parker, 98-0256 (La.5/8/98), 711 So.2d 694. As such, it is subject to the time limitation set forth in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8. Relator’s application was not timely filed [1282]*1282in the district court, and he fails to carry his burden .to show that an exception applies. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8; State ex rel. Glover v. State, 93-2330 (La.9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189. In addition, the application is repetitive. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4.

Relator has now fully litigated his second 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 stete collateral review. The District Court *s 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 does not identify an illegal term in his sentence, and therefore, his filing is properly construed as an application for post-conviction relief. See State v. Parker, 98-0256 (La.5/8/98), 711 So.2d 694. As such, it is subject to the time limitation set forth in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8. Relator’s application was not timely filed [1282]*1282in the district court, and he fails to carry his burden .to show that an exception applies. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8; State ex rel. Glover v. State, 93-2330 (La.9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189. In addition, the application is repetitive. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4.

Relator has now fully litigated his second 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 stete collateral review. The District Court *s ordered to record a minute entry consistent with this per curiam.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

184 So. 3d 1281, 2016 La. LEXIS 361, 2016 WL 783244, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-edwards-v-state-la-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack