State ex rel. Gibson v. State

Supreme Court of Louisiana

State ex rel. Gibson v. State

225 So. 3d 1065, 2017 WL 3903016

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedSeptember 6, 2017

DocketNo. 2016-KH-0712

StatusPublished

This text of 225 So. 3d 1065 (State ex rel. Gibson 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. Gibson v. State, 225 So. 3d 1065, 2017 WL 3903016 (La. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF ORLEANS

PER CURIAM:

11 Denied. Construing relator’s pleading as a bona fide motion to correct an illegal sentence, in accordance with its caption, the district court did not err in denying it because relator identifies no illegal term in his sentence. Cf. La.C.Cr.P. art. 882.

In the alternative, construing the pleading as an application for post-conviction relief, see La.C.Cr.P. art. 924(1) (“An ‘application for post conviction relief means a petition filed by a person in custody after sentence following conviction for the commission of an offense seeking to have the conviction and sentence set aside.”), it was correctly denied. Relator’s sentencing claims are not cognizable on collateral review. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.3; State ex rel. Melinie v. State, 93-1380 (La. 1/12/96), 665 So.2d 1172; see also State v. Cotton, 09-2397 (La. 10/15/10), 45 So.3d 1030. The application is also repetitive. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4.

Moreover, relator has previously exhausted his right to state collateral review. See State ex rel. Gibson v. State, 15-1857 (La. 11/29/16), 207 So.3d 396.

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

ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF ORLEANS

PER CURIAM:

11 Denied. Construing relator’s pleading as a bona fide motion to correct an illegal sentence, in accordance with its caption, the district court did not err in denying it because relator identifies no illegal term in his sentence. Cf. La.C.Cr.P. art. 882.

In the alternative, construing the pleading as an application for post-conviction relief, see La.C.Cr.P. art. 924(1) (“An ‘application for post conviction relief means a petition filed by a person in custody after sentence following conviction for the commission of an offense seeking to have the conviction and sentence set aside.”), it was correctly denied. Relator’s sentencing claims are not cognizable on collateral review. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.3; State ex rel. Melinie v. State, 93-1380 (La. 1/12/96), 665 So.2d 1172; see also State v. Cotton, 09-2397 (La. 10/15/10), 45 So.3d 1030. The application is also repetitive. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4.

Moreover, relator has previously exhausted his right to state collateral review. See State ex rel. Gibson v. State, 15-1857 (La. 11/29/16), 207 So.3d 396.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

225 So. 3d 1065, 2017 WL 3903016, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-gibson-v-state-la-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack