State v. Dietrich

Supreme Court of Louisiana

State v. Dietrich

241 So. 3d 1004

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedMay 9, 2018

DocketNo. 2017–KP–0801

StatusPublished

This text of 241 So. 3d 1004 (State v. Dietrich) 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. Dietrich, 241 So. 3d 1004 (La. 2018).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Writ denied. Relator shows no error or abuse of discretion in the district court's dismissal of his claims on procedural grounds. See La.C.Cr.P. arts. 930.4 & 930.8 ; see also State ex rel. Glover v. State , 93-2330 (La. 9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189.

Relator has now fully litigated at least three applications 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 one 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:

Writ denied. Relator shows no error or abuse of discretion in the district court's dismissal of his claims on procedural grounds. See La.C.Cr.P. arts. 930.4 & 930.8 ; see also State ex rel. Glover v. State , 93-2330 (La. 9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189.

Relator has now fully litigated at least three applications 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 one 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)

241 So. 3d 1004, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-dietrich-la-2018.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack