State ex rel. Robinson v. State

592 So. 2d 418, 1991 La. App. LEXIS 3676, 1991 WL 303816
Louisiana Court of Appeal·Decided October 25, 1991·No. No. KW 91 1764·Published·Cited by 3 cases

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

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

592 So. 2d 418 (State ex rel. Robinson v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State ex rel. Thompson v. State
699 So. 2d 74 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1997)
Wallace v. Cappel
592 So. 2d 418 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1991)