State v. Ford

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

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.