State ex rel. Lay v. State

Supreme Court of Louisiana

State ex rel. Lay v. State

184 So. 3d 1271, 2016 La. LEXIS 349, 2016 WL 783068

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedFebruary 26, 2016

DocketNo. 2015-KH-2332

StatusPublished

This text of 184 So. 3d 1271 (State ex rel. Lay 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. Lay v. State, 184 So. 3d 1271, 2016 La. LEXIS 349, 2016 WL 783068 (La. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

*

| denied. That relator names his filing an application for a writ of habeas corpus does not save him from the time limitations period for applications for post-conviction relief set out in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8. See State ex rel. Glover v. State, 93-2330, pp. 9-11 (La.9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189, 1195-96 (distinguishing habeas corpus from post-conviction relief and endorsing La.C.Cr.P. art. 351 and its cmt. (c), which state that “habeas corpus is not the proper procedural device for petitioners who may file applications for post conviction relief;” rather, it “deals with pre-con-viction -complaints concerning custody”). The application was not timely filed in the district court, and relator fails to carry his burden to show that an exception applies. In addition, relator’s sentencing ciaim is 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. Finally, the application is repetitive. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4.

Relator-has now fully litigated several applications 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 12application. 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 state collateral review. The District Court is ordered to record a minute entry consistent with this per curiam.

[1272]*1272WEIMER, J., recused, HUGHES, J., would grant the writ.

Weirmer, J., recused.

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

PER CURIAM.

*

| denied. That relator names his filing an application for a writ of habeas corpus does not save him from the time limitations period for applications for post-conviction relief set out in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8. See State ex rel. Glover v. State, 93-2330, pp. 9-11 (La.9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189, 1195-96 (distinguishing habeas corpus from post-conviction relief and endorsing La.C.Cr.P. art. 351 and its cmt. (c), which state that “habeas corpus is not the proper procedural device for petitioners who may file applications for post conviction relief;” rather, it “deals with pre-con-viction -complaints concerning custody”). The application was not timely filed in the district court, and relator fails to carry his burden to show that an exception applies. In addition, relator’s sentencing ciaim is 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. Finally, the application is repetitive. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4.

Relator-has now fully litigated several applications 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 12application. 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 state collateral review. The District Court is ordered to record a minute entry consistent with this per curiam.

[1272]*1272WEIMER, J., recused, HUGHES, J., would grant the writ.

Weirmer, J., recused.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

184 So. 3d 1271, 2016 La. LEXIS 349, 2016 WL 783068, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-lay-v-state-la-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack