State ex rel. Scramuzza v. State

Supreme Court of Louisiana

State ex rel. Scramuzza v. State

218 So. 3d 91, 2017 WL 1629368, 2017 La. LEXIS 916

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedMay 1, 2017

DocketNo. 2015-KH-2329

StatusPublished

This text of 218 So. 3d 91 (State ex rel. Scramuzza 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. Scramuzza v. State, 218 So. 3d 91, 2017 WL 1629368, 2017 La. LEXIS 916 (La. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

| denied. Relator’s unconditional guilty plea waived review of all non-jurisdictional defects. State v. McKinney, 406 So.2d 160, 161 (La. 1981); State v. Crosby, 338 So.2d 584, 586 (La. 1976). Relator also fails to show she received ineffective assistance of counsel under the standard of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). Finally, relator’s sentencing claim is not cognizable on collateral review. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.3; State ex rel. Melinie v. State, 93-1380 (La. 1/12/96), 665 So.2d 1172.

Relator has now fully litigated her 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 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’s claims have now been fully litigated in accord with La. C.Cr.P. art. 930.6, and this denial is final. Hereafter, unless she can show that one of the narrow exceptions authorizing the filing of a successive ^application applies, relator has exhausted her 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:

| denied. Relator’s unconditional guilty plea waived review of all non-jurisdictional defects. State v. McKinney, 406 So.2d 160, 161 (La. 1981); State v. Crosby, 338 So.2d 584, 586 (La. 1976). Relator also fails to show she received ineffective assistance of counsel under the standard of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). Finally, relator’s sentencing claim is not cognizable on collateral review. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.3; State ex rel. Melinie v. State, 93-1380 (La. 1/12/96), 665 So.2d 1172.

Relator has now fully litigated her 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 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’s claims have now been fully litigated in accord with La. C.Cr.P. art. 930.6, and this denial is final. Hereafter, unless she can show that one of the narrow exceptions authorizing the filing of a successive ^application applies, relator has exhausted her 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)

218 So. 3d 91, 2017 WL 1629368, 2017 La. LEXIS 916, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-scramuzza-v-state-la-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack