State ex rel. Ott v. State

Supreme Court of Louisiana

State ex rel. Ott v. State

181 So. 3d 697, 2015 La. LEXIS 2701, 2015 WL 8679160

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedNovember 6, 2015

DocketNo. 2015-KH-0230

StatusPublished

This text of 181 So. 3d 697 (State ex rel. Ott 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. Ott v. State, 181 So. 3d 697, 2015 La. LEXIS 2701, 2015 WL 8679160 (La. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

1 t Denied. Relator fails to show the district court erred when it found his claims were fully litigated on appeal, see La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4(A), and/or 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.

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 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 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.

1 t Denied. Relator fails to show the district court erred when it found his claims were fully litigated on appeal, see La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4(A), and/or 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.

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 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 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)

181 So. 3d 697, 2015 La. LEXIS 2701, 2015 WL 8679160, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-ott-v-state-la-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack