State ex rel. Johnson v. State

Supreme Court of Louisiana

State ex rel. Johnson v. State

182 So. 3d 947, 2016 La. LEXIS 3, 2016 WL 228222

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedJanuary 8, 2016

DocketNo. 2015-KH-0267

StatusPublished

This text of 182 So. 3d 947 (State ex rel. Johnson 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. Johnson v. State, 182 So. 3d 947, 2016 La. LEXIS 3, 2016 WL 228222 (La. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

| denied. Relator’s claim concerning the admission of his recorded telephone conversation into evidence is repetitive. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4. The non-unanimous jury verdict does not violate due process. See Johnson v. Louisiana, 406 U.S. 356, 92 S.Ct. 1620, 32 L.Ed.2d 152 (1972). As to the remaining claims, relator fails to satisfy. the post-conyiction burden of proof. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.2. .

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 ahd 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 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.

| denied. Relator’s claim concerning the admission of his recorded telephone conversation into evidence is repetitive. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4. The non-unanimous jury verdict does not violate due process. See Johnson v. Louisiana, 406 U.S. 356, 92 S.Ct. 1620, 32 L.Ed.2d 152 (1972). As to the remaining claims, relator fails to satisfy. the post-conyiction burden of proof. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.2. .

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 ahd 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 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)

182 So. 3d 947, 2016 La. LEXIS 3, 2016 WL 228222, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-johnson-v-state-la-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack