State of Louisiana v. Tyrone Williams A/K/A Tyronne Williams

• Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
• Decided: July 24, 2019
• Docket: 2019-K-0534
• Status: Published

Opinion

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

STATE OF LOUISIANA * NO. 2019-K-0534

VERSUS * COURT OF APPEAL TYRONE WILLIAMS A/K/A * TYRONNE WILLIAMS FOURTH CIRCUIT * STATE OF LOUISIANA *******

APPLICATION FOR WRITS DIRECTED TO CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT ORLEANS PARISH NO. 512-747, SECTION “G” Honorable Dennis J. Waldron, Judge ****** JAMES F. MCKAY III CHIEF JUDGE ****** (Court composed of Chief Judge James F. McKay III, Judge Terri F. Love, Judge Roland L. Belsome)

BELSOME, J., CONCURS IN THE RESULT

TYRONE WILLIAMS, 120769 Louisiana State Penitentiary Angola, Louisiana 70712 PRO SE DEFENDANT/ RELATOR

LEON CANNIZZARO, JR. DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ORLEANS PARISH DONNA ANDRIEU ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY 619 S. White St. New Orleans, Louisiana 70119 COUNNSEL FOR STATE/RESPONDENT

WRIT GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

JULY 24, 2019 NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

The defendant seeks review of the district court’s May 23, 2019 ruling

denying his petition for post-conviction relief. We grant the writ and deny relief

for the reasons that follow.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Based on a CODIS (Combined DNA Index System) match, the State

charged the defendant in 2012 with an aggravated rape which had occurred in

1994. The jury convicted him as charged and the court imposed the statutorily

mandated term of life imprisonment at hard labor without benefit of parole,

probation or suspension of sentence. Rejecting claims that the court erred when it:

(1) found him competent to proceed; (2) denied him the right to represent himself;

(3) admitted other crimes evidence; (4) failed to administer a limiting instruction;

and (5) permitted the state to argue facts not in evidence during its closing

argument, this Court affirmed the conviction and sentence. State v. Williams,

2016-1192 (La. App. 4 Cir. 10/18/17), ___ So.3d ___. The Supreme Court denied

writs. State v. Williams, 2017-1965 (La. 6/15/18), 257 So.3d 684.

On February 19, 2019, the defendant filed a motion for the production of his

trial and sentencing transcripts, which the court denied. On May 20, 2019, the

defendant filed an application for post-conviction relief and supporting

memorandum. On May 23, 2019, the district court denied relief. On June 7, 1 2019, the defendant noticed his intent to seek writs and the court set a return date

of August 7, 2019. His writ application seeking review of the adverse post-

conviction rulings was filed in this Court on June 18, 2019.

DISCUSSION

The defendant first claims that the district court erred when it denied his

motion for the production of his trial and sentencing transcripts. However, the

defendant has done no more than make conclusory allegations and thus has not

demonstrated a particularized need for the transcripts in this case. See State ex rel.

Bernard v. Criminal Dist. Court Section J, 94-2247, pp. 1-2 (La. 4/28/95), 653

So.2d 1174, 1175 (access to material on collateral review “does not require the

State to underwrite the inmate's efforts to overturn his conviction and sentence by

providing him generally with documents ‘to comb the record for errors.’”) (citing

State ex rel. Payton v. Thiel, 315 So.2d 40 (La. 1975)). Moreover, the record was

provided to the defendant on appeal so that he could file a pro se supplemental

brief. This claim lacks merit.

As a substantive matter, the defendant claims that his appellate counsel

rendered ineffective assistance by failing to raise three trial court errors on direct

review: (1) that the court erred when it overruled his objection when the state

referenced prior offenses during voir dire; (2) that the court erred when it overruled

his objection on hearsay grounds to a portion of the State’s opening statement; and

(3) that the court erred when it denied his request for special jury instructions.

As an initial matter, as discussed above, this Court provided the defendant

with the trial record on appeal and he filed a supplemental pro se brief on direct

review. In this situation, the defendant’s allegation concerning his appellate

2 counsel’s deficient performance may be rejected on procedural grounds. See La.

C.Cr.P. art. 930.4(C) (“If the application alleges a claim which the petitioner raised

in the trial court and inexcusably failed to pursue on appeal, the court shall deny

relief.”). A review of our appellate opinion reveals that this Court largely

addressed the issues that the defendant’s claims were not addressed by appellate

counsel and found they lacked merit. See La. C.Cr.P. art. 930.4(A) (“Unless

required in the interest of justice, any claim for relief which was fully litigated in

an appeal from the proceedings leading to the judgment of conviction and sentence

shall not be considered.”). The defendant points to no evidence suggesting that

appellate counsel failed to pursue a viable claim on direct review. Accordingly,

even absent the procedural bars, the defendant shows no entitlement to relief.

Given the unsupported and repetitive nature of the defendant’s pro se post-

conviction claims concerning his appellate counsel’s failure to raise issues on

direct review, he does not show that the district court erred when it denied relief

summarily.