State v. Ford

Supreme Court of Louisiana

State v. Ford

694 So. 2d 917, 1997 La. LEXIS 1848, 1997 WL 306404

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedMay 30, 1997

DocketNo. 96-KP-2919

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 694 So. 2d 917 (State v. Ford) 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. Ford, 694 So. 2d 917, 1997 La. LEXIS 1848, 1997 WL 306404 (La. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Writ granted. The trial court may not avoid the procedural bars of La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4 and La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8 by “reconsidering” an application for post-conviction relief on which it has earlier ruled, see La. C.Cr.P. art. 930.6; La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.6 emt.; State v. Clayton, 96-1658 (La. 2/27/97), 687 So.2d 996; State ex rel. Lewis v. Cr.D.C., 571 So.2d 659 (La.1991), especially when, as here, this Court has considered and rejected the claims. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4(D); State v. Ford, 94-2883 (La. 2/3/95), 649 So.2d 404; State ex rel. Ford v. Blackburn, 513 So.2d 816 (La.1987). In any event, Ford’s claims otherwise lack merit. See State v. Hamilton, 478 So.2d 123, 128-29 (La.1985); State v. Mack, 403 So.2d 8, 9-10 (La.1981); State v. Smith, 91-0749 (La. 5/23/94), 637 So.2d 398, cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1045, 115 S.Ct. 641, 130 L.Ed.2d 546 (1994); Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 2064, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).

KIMBALL, J., not on panel.

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

PER CURIAM:

Writ granted. The trial court may not avoid the procedural bars of La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4 and La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8 by “reconsidering” an application for post-conviction relief on which it has earlier ruled, see La. C.Cr.P. art. 930.6; La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.6 emt.; State v. Clayton, 96-1658 (La. 2/27/97), 687 So.2d 996; State ex rel. Lewis v. Cr.D.C., 571 So.2d 659 (La.1991), especially when, as here, this Court has considered and rejected the claims. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4(D); State v. Ford, 94-2883 (La. 2/3/95), 649 So.2d 404; State ex rel. Ford v. Blackburn, 513 So.2d 816 (La.1987). In any event, Ford’s claims otherwise lack merit. See State v. Hamilton, 478 So.2d 123, 128-29 (La.1985); State v. Mack, 403 So.2d 8, 9-10 (La.1981); State v. Smith, 91-0749 (La. 5/23/94), 637 So.2d 398, cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1045, 115 S.Ct. 641, 130 L.Ed.2d 546 (1994); Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 2064, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).

KIMBALL, J., not on panel.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

694 So. 2d 917, 1997 La. LEXIS 1848, 1997 WL 306404, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-ford-la-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack