State ex rel. Lloyd v. State

Supreme Court of Louisiana

State ex rel. Lloyd v. State

177 So. 3d 1057, 2015 La. LEXIS 2257, 2015 WL 6443803

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedOctober 23, 2015

DocketNo. 2014-KH-2548

StatusPublished

This text of 177 So. 3d 1057 (State ex rel. Lloyd 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. Lloyd v. State, 177 So. 3d 1057, 2015 La. LEXIS 2257, 2015 WL 6443803 (La. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

| denied. Relator fails to show he received ineffective assistance of counsel under the standard of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). The non-unanimous jury verdict does not violate due process. See Johnson v. Louisiana, 406 U.S. 356, 357, 92 S.Ct. 1620, 1622, 32 L.Ed.2d 152 (1972); State v. Bertrand, 08-2215, p. 7 (La.3/17/09), 6 So.3d 738, 742. Relator’s sentencing claim is not cognizable on collateral review. See La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.3; State ex rel. Melinie v. State, 93-1380 (La.1/12/96), 665 So.2d 1172.

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 state collateral proceedings in accordance with La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.6 and the denial of relief has become final. Hereafter, unless relator 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.

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

PER CURIAM.

| denied. Relator fails to show he received ineffective assistance of counsel under the standard of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). The non-unanimous jury verdict does not violate due process. See Johnson v. Louisiana, 406 U.S. 356, 357, 92 S.Ct. 1620, 1622, 32 L.Ed.2d 152 (1972); State v. Bertrand, 08-2215, p. 7 (La.3/17/09), 6 So.3d 738, 742. Relator’s sentencing claim is not cognizable on collateral review. See La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.3; State ex rel. Melinie v. State, 93-1380 (La.1/12/96), 665 So.2d 1172.

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 state collateral proceedings in accordance with La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.6 and the denial of relief has become final. Hereafter, unless relator 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

177 So. 3d 1057, 2015 La. LEXIS 2257, 2015 WL 6443803, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-lloyd-v-state-la-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack