State ex rel. Robinson v. State

Louisiana Court of Appeal

State ex rel. Robinson v. State

592 So. 2d 418, 1991 La. App. LEXIS 3676, 1991 WL 303816

CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal

DecidedOctober 25, 1991

DocketNo. KW 91 1764

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 592 So. 2d 418 (State ex rel. Robinson v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Louisiana Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State ex rel. Robinson v. State, 592 So. 2d 418, 1991 La. App. LEXIS 3676, 1991 WL 303816 (La. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

WRIT GRANTED: The trial court is ordered to reconsider relator’s application in light of La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4(F). Should the district court consider denying the application because of relator’s failure to include these claims in a prior application, the court must first comply with the directive of Article 930.4(D) and order relator to state reasons for the failure. See State v. Turner, 544 So.2d 387 (La.1989). See also McCleskey v. Zant, — U.S. -, 111 S.Ct. 1454, 113 L.Ed.2d 517 (1991), for general standards to evaluate whether or not relator is procedurally barred from raising these claims. The court need not appoint counsel to assist relator in advancing his claim that the application is not repetitive. See Acts 1990, No. 523 (effective September 7, 1990).

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

WRIT GRANTED: The trial court is ordered to reconsider relator’s application in light of La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4(F). Should the district court consider denying the application because of relator’s failure to include these claims in a prior application, the court must first comply with the directive of Article 930.4(D) and order relator to state reasons for the failure. See State v. Turner, 544 So.2d 387 (La.1989). See also McCleskey v. Zant, — U.S. -, 111 S.Ct. 1454, 113 L.Ed.2d 517 (1991), for general standards to evaluate whether or not relator is procedurally barred from raising these claims. The court need not appoint counsel to assist relator in advancing his claim that the application is not repetitive. See Acts 1990, No. 523 (effective September 7, 1990).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

592 So. 2d 418, 1991 La. App. LEXIS 3676, 1991 WL 303816, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-robinson-v-state-lactapp-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack