State ex rel. Raymond v. State

Supreme Court of Louisiana

State ex rel. Raymond v. State

193 So. 3d 1162, 2016 La. LEXIS 1356, 2016 WL 3172384

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedJune 3, 2016

DocketNo. 2016-KH-0809

StatusPublished

This text of 193 So. 3d 1162 (State ex rel. Raymond 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. Raymond v. State, 193 So. 3d 1162, 2016 La. LEXIS 1356, 2016 WL 3172384 (La. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

JjWRIT NOT CONSIDERED. Untimely filed pursuant to La.S.Ct. Rule X § 5.

Relator has now exhausted his right to obtain post-conviction relief in state court. Similar to federal habéás 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 has filed an application for post-conviction relief in the District Court, and the District Court’s ruling denying relief is now 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

PER CURIAM.

JjWRIT NOT CONSIDERED. Untimely filed pursuant to La.S.Ct. Rule X § 5.

Relator has now exhausted his right to obtain post-conviction relief in state court. Similar to federal habéás 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 has filed an application for post-conviction relief in the District Court, and the District Court’s ruling denying relief is now 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)

193 So. 3d 1162, 2016 La. LEXIS 1356, 2016 WL 3172384, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-raymond-v-state-la-2016.