State v. Dietz

Supreme Court of Louisiana

State v. Dietz

262 So. 3d 278

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedJanuary 28, 2019

DocketNo. 2016-KP-1538

StatusPublished

This text of 262 So. 3d 278 (State v. Dietz) 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. Dietz, 262 So. 3d 278 (La. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Writ granted in part. The district court erred in summarily ruling that the application for post-conviction relief, which is based on a sealed videotaped interview with the victim to which post-conviction counsel did not obtain access until 2016, is barred by the post-conviction limitations period. See La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8(A)(1). Accordingly, we grant the application in part and remand to the district court to conduct an evidentiary hearing on the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. In addition, the district court is ordered to allow the transcription of the victim's videotaped interview, which is to be introduced into *279evidence and maintained under seal. In all other respects, the application is denied.

GUIDRY, J., would deny.

CLARK, J., would deny.

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

PER CURIAM:

Writ granted in part. The district court erred in summarily ruling that the application for post-conviction relief, which is based on a sealed videotaped interview with the victim to which post-conviction counsel did not obtain access until 2016, is barred by the post-conviction limitations period. See La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8(A)(1). Accordingly, we grant the application in part and remand to the district court to conduct an evidentiary hearing on the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. In addition, the district court is ordered to allow the transcription of the victim's videotaped interview, which is to be introduced into *279evidence and maintained under seal. In all other respects, the application is denied.

GUIDRY, J., would deny.

CLARK, J., would deny.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

262 So. 3d 278, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-dietz-la-2019.