State ex rel. Shannon v. State

Supreme Court of Louisiana

State ex rel. Shannon v. State

194 So. 3d 1105, 2016 La. LEXIS 1429, 2016 WL 3525814

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedJune 17, 2016

DocketNo. 2015-KH-0792

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 194 So. 3d 1105 (State ex rel. Shannon 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. Shannon v. State, 194 So. 3d 1105, 2016 La. LEXIS 1429, 2016 WL 3525814 (La. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

In re Michael Shannon;—Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. G, No.-478-693; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2015-K-0176.

11Writ granted; case remanded. The district court’s ruling summarily dismissing relator’s post-conviction application is vacated and the district court is directed to conduct an evidentiary hearing at which relator will be afforded the opportunity to present his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel with supporting evidence. Although only relator’s pro se claims were raised in the district court (because relator filed his application before pro bono post-conviction counsel enrolled), and “[t]he general rule is that appellate courts will not consider issues raised for the first time,” Segura v. Frank, 93-1271 (La.1/14/94), 630 So.2d 714, 725, the interests of judicial economy and justice warrant the consideration of both delator’s pro se and counselled allegations at an eviden-tiary hearing. See, e.g., State v. Duncan, 08-2244 (La.1/22/10), 26 So.3d 148 (granting writs to remand the petitioner’s post-conviction claims, including a claim not previously presented to the district court, for an evidentiary hearing). Following the hearing, the district court is ordered to determine whether trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance under , the standard set out in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).

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

In re Michael Shannon;—Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. G, No.-478-693; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2015-K-0176.

11Writ granted; case remanded. The district court’s ruling summarily dismissing relator’s post-conviction application is vacated and the district court is directed to conduct an evidentiary hearing at which relator will be afforded the opportunity to present his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel with supporting evidence. Although only relator’s pro se claims were raised in the district court (because relator filed his application before pro bono post-conviction counsel enrolled), and “[t]he general rule is that appellate courts will not consider issues raised for the first time,” Segura v. Frank, 93-1271 (La.1/14/94), 630 So.2d 714, 725, the interests of judicial economy and justice warrant the consideration of both delator’s pro se and counselled allegations at an eviden-tiary hearing. See, e.g., State v. Duncan, 08-2244 (La.1/22/10), 26 So.3d 148 (granting writs to remand the petitioner’s post-conviction claims, including a claim not previously presented to the district court, for an evidentiary hearing). Following the hearing, the district court is ordered to determine whether trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance under , the standard set out in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

194 So. 3d 1105, 2016 La. LEXIS 1429, 2016 WL 3525814, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-shannon-v-state-la-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack