State v. Chambers

Supreme Court of Louisiana

State v. Chambers

271 So. 3d 1259

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedMay 20, 2019

DocketNo. 2019-KH-0391

StatusPublished

This text of 271 So. 3d 1259 (State v. Chambers) 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. Chambers, 271 So. 3d 1259 (La. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Denied. Applicant fails to show that 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).

Applicant 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. Applicant'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 one of the narrow exceptions authorizing the filing of a successive application applies, applicant has exhausted his right to state collateral review. The district court is ordered to record a minute entry consistent with this per curiam.

Hughes, J., would grant and assigns reasons.

It is never a good idea for a trial judge to enter the jury room during deliberations, even with consent of counsel. The better practice is to bring the jury into the courtroom and put it on the record.

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

PER CURIAM:

Denied. Applicant fails to show that 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).

Applicant 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. Applicant'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 one of the narrow exceptions authorizing the filing of a successive application applies, applicant has exhausted his right to state collateral review. The district court is ordered to record a minute entry consistent with this per curiam.

Hughes, J., would grant and assigns reasons.

It is never a good idea for a trial judge to enter the jury room during deliberations, even with consent of counsel. The better practice is to bring the jury into the courtroom and put it on the record.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

271 So. 3d 1259, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-chambers-la-2019.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack