State ex rel. Randolph v. State

Supreme Court of Louisiana

State ex rel. Randolph v. State

847 So. 2d 1183, 2003 La. LEXIS 1341, 2003 WL 21040001

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedMay 9, 2003

DocketNo. 2002-KH-1372

StatusPublished

This text of 847 So. 2d 1183 (State ex rel. Randolph 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. Randolph v. State, 847 So. 2d 1183, 2003 La. LEXIS 1341, 2003 WL 21040001 (La. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Granted. Relator’s filing in this Court adequately complies with the requirements of La.C.Cr.P. art. 926.1 B, in that the application is timely (ie. filed before August 31, 2005), identifies specifically the evidence to be subjected to DNA testing (ie., the victim’s slip and bed sheet), provides the requisite affidavit of innocence consistent with relator’s trial testimony in which he claimed an alibi, and provides a factual explanation of why there is articu-lable doubt based on competent evidence as to the guilt of the relator which DNA testing will resolve and establish his innocence. See La.C.Cr.P. art. 926.1(B). This case is therefore remanded to the district court with instructions to appoint counsel for relator and to conduct a hearing on the merits of relator’s DNA request in the context of determining whether the specified material susceptible to DNA testing still exists. See La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.3(7)(providing grounds for post conviction relief when “[t]he results of DNA testing performed pursuant to an application granted under Article 926.1 proves by clear and convincing evidence that petitioner is factually innocent of the crime for which he was convicted”).

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

PER CURIAM.

Granted. Relator’s filing in this Court adequately complies with the requirements of La.C.Cr.P. art. 926.1 B, in that the application is timely (ie. filed before August 31, 2005), identifies specifically the evidence to be subjected to DNA testing (ie., the victim’s slip and bed sheet), provides the requisite affidavit of innocence consistent with relator’s trial testimony in which he claimed an alibi, and provides a factual explanation of why there is articu-lable doubt based on competent evidence as to the guilt of the relator which DNA testing will resolve and establish his innocence. See La.C.Cr.P. art. 926.1(B). This case is therefore remanded to the district court with instructions to appoint counsel for relator and to conduct a hearing on the merits of relator’s DNA request in the context of determining whether the specified material susceptible to DNA testing still exists. See La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.3(7)(providing grounds for post conviction relief when “[t]he results of DNA testing performed pursuant to an application granted under Article 926.1 proves by clear and convincing evidence that petitioner is factually innocent of the crime for which he was convicted”).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

847 So. 2d 1183, 2003 La. LEXIS 1341, 2003 WL 21040001, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-randolph-v-state-la-2003.