State ex rel. Shilling v. Whitley

Supreme Court of Louisiana

State ex rel. Shilling v. Whitley

637 So. 2d 459, 1994 La. LEXIS 1124, 1994 WL 159773

Supreme Court of Louisiana·Decided April 29, 1994·No. No. 92-KH-3312·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

In re Shilling, John; — Plain tiff(s); applying for supervisory and/or remedial writ; Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court, Div. “C”, No. 81-665.-

Denied. Although the district court erred in denying without a hearing relator’s application for post-conviction relief on the basis of LSA-C.Cr.P. art. 930.8, and although relator presents a colorable claim that a witness at his trial may have entered into a plea bargain arrangement which the district attorney did not disclose and as to which the witness testified falsely, relator’s claim that the state knowingly used perjured testimony to convict him ultimately lacks merit. After undertaking a review of the record, this Court finds that given the other evidence against him, there is no reasonable likelihood that the alleged false testimony could have affected the outcome of the trial. Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264, 79 S.Ct. 1173, 3 L.Ed.2d 1217 (1959); Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 92 S.Ct. 763, 31 L.Ed.2d 104 (1972).

DENNIS, J., not on panel.

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

In re Shilling, John; — Plain tiff(s); applying for supervisory and/or remedial writ; Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court, Div. “C”, No. 81-665.-

Denied. Although the district court erred in denying without a hearing relator’s application for post-conviction relief on the basis of LSA-C.Cr.P. art. 930.8, and although relator presents a colorable claim that a witness at his trial may have entered into a plea bargain arrangement which the district attorney did not disclose and as to which the witness testified falsely, relator’s claim that the state knowingly used perjured testimony to convict him ultimately lacks merit. After undertaking a review of the record, this Court finds that given the other evidence against him, there is no reasonable likelihood that the alleged false testimony could have affected the outcome of the trial. Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264, 79 S.Ct. 1173, 3 L.Ed.2d 1217 (1959); Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 92 S.Ct. 763, 31 L.Ed.2d 104 (1972).

DENNIS, J., not on panel.

State ex rel. Shilling v. Whitley, 637 So. 2d 459, 1994 La. LEXIS 1124, 1994 WL 159773 (La. 1994).

Pincite

637 So. 2d 459 (State ex rel. Shilling v. Whitley) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related