State ex rel. Payton v. State

Supreme Court of Louisiana

State ex rel. Payton v. State

235 So. 3d 1098

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedFebruary 9, 2018

DocketNo. 2016-KH-1795

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 235 So. 3d 1098 (State ex rel. Payton 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. Payton v. State, 235 So. 3d 1098 (La. 2018).

Pincite

Opinion

ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF OUACHITA

• PER CURIAM:

|, Denied. On the showing made, relator is not entitled to an out-of-time appeal. See State v. Counterman, 475 So.2d 336 (La. 1985). By pleading guilty unconditionally, he waived all non-jurisdictional defects in the proceedings leading to his conviction, State v. Crosby, 338 So.2d 584, 586 (La. 1976), and relator cannot appeal or seek review of a sentence imposed in conformity with a plea agreement. La.C.Cr.P, art. 881.2(A)(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 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 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

ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF OUACHITA

• PER CURIAM:

|, Denied. On the showing made, relator is not entitled to an out-of-time appeal. See State v. Counterman, 475 So.2d 336 (La. 1985). By pleading guilty unconditionally, he waived all non-jurisdictional defects in the proceedings leading to his conviction, State v. Crosby, 338 So.2d 584, 586 (La. 1976), and relator cannot appeal or seek review of a sentence imposed in conformity with a plea agreement. La.C.Cr.P, art. 881.2(A)(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 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 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)

235 So. 3d 1098, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-payton-v-state-la-2018.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack