STATE EX REL. THURMAN v. State

Supreme Court of Louisiana

STATE EX REL. THURMAN v. State

1 So. 3d 459, 2009 La. LEXIS 34, 2009 WL 350722

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedFebruary 13, 2009

Docket2008-KH-0994

StatusPublished

This text of 1 So. 3d 459 (STATE EX REL. THURMAN 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. THURMAN v. State, 1 So. 3d 459, 2009 La. LEXIS 34, 2009 WL 350722 (La. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Writ granted in part; otherwise denied; case remanded to the district court. As suggested in our earlier order, relator raised the issue of his entitlement to an out-of-time appeal within the time parameters established by La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8(A), albeit not in the district court. State v. Thurman, 07-1986 (La.6/6/08), 983 So.2d 915. Accordingly, neither the prescriptive period of art. 930.8(A) nor the discretionary procedural bar of La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4(E) should operate to deprive relator of his constitutional right to appeal. The district court is thus ordered to appoint counsel for purposes of holding a hearing at which it will determine whether relator is entitled to an out-of-time appeal under the rule of State v. Counterman, 475 So.2d 336, 340 (La.1985) (out-of-time appeal may be appropriate in cases in which either “the defendant was not substantially notified at sentencing of his right to appeal or those in which the-defense attorney was at fault in failing to file or perfect a timely appeal.”). In all other respects the application is denied.

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

PER CURIAM.

Writ granted in part; otherwise denied; case remanded to the district court. As suggested in our earlier order, relator raised the issue of his entitlement to an out-of-time appeal within the time parameters established by La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8(A), albeit not in the district court. State v. Thurman, 07-1986 (La.6/6/08), 983 So.2d 915. Accordingly, neither the prescriptive period of art. 930.8(A) nor the discretionary procedural bar of La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4(E) should operate to deprive relator of his constitutional right to appeal. The district court is thus ordered to appoint counsel for purposes of holding a hearing at which it will determine whether relator is entitled to an out-of-time appeal under the rule of State v. Counterman, 475 So.2d 336, 340 (La.1985) (out-of-time appeal may be appropriate in cases in which either “the defendant was not substantially notified at sentencing of his right to appeal or those in which the-defense attorney was at fault in failing to file or perfect a timely appeal.”). In all other respects the application is denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 So. 3d 459, 2009 La. LEXIS 34, 2009 WL 350722, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-thurman-v-state-la-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack