State v. Bickham

Supreme Court of Louisiana

State v. Bickham

190 So. 3d 709, 2016 WL 2877894, 2016 La. LEXIS 1138

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedMay 13, 2016

DocketNo. 2015-KP-1267

StatusPublished

This text of 190 So. 3d 709 (State v. Bickham) 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 v. Bickham, 190 So. 3d 709, 2016 WL 2877894, 2016 La. LEXIS 1138 (La. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

I,Denied. Relator fails to show he 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).

Relator has now fully litigated his 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 he can show that pne of the narrow exceptions authorizing the filing of a successive application applies, relator has exhausted his 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.

I,Denied. Relator fails to show he 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).

Relator has now fully litigated his 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 he can show that pne of the narrow exceptions authorizing the filing of a successive application applies, relator has exhausted his 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)

190 So. 3d 709, 2016 WL 2877894, 2016 La. LEXIS 1138, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-bickham-la-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack