State ex rel. Hoyt v. State

Supreme Court of Louisiana

State ex rel. Hoyt v. State

191 So. 3d 1025, 2016 WL 2994023, 2016 La. LEXIS 1230

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedMay 20, 2016

DocketNo. 2015-KH-1278

StatusPublished

This text of 191 So. 3d 1025 (State ex rel. Hoyt 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. Hoyt v. State, 191 So. 3d 1025, 2016 WL 2994023, 2016 La. LEXIS 1230 (La. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

| iDenied. Relator does not identify an illegal term in her sentence, and therefore, her 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 in the district court, and she fails to carry her 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.

Relator has now fully litigated her 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 relator can show that one of the narrow | ^exceptions authorizing the filing of a successive application applies, relator has exhausted her 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.

| iDenied. Relator does not identify an illegal term in her sentence, and therefore, her 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 in the district court, and she fails to carry her 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.

Relator has now fully litigated her 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 relator can show that one of the narrow | ^exceptions authorizing the filing of a successive application applies, relator has exhausted her 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)

191 So. 3d 1025, 2016 WL 2994023, 2016 La. LEXIS 1230, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-hoyt-v-state-la-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack