State v. Hurst

Supreme Court of Louisiana

State v. Hurst

254 So. 3d 680

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedOctober 15, 2018

DocketNo. 2018-KP-0470

StatusPublished

This text of 254 So. 3d 680 (State v. Hurst) 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. Hurst, 254 So. 3d 680 (La. 2018).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Denied. Relator fails to show any error in the rulings of the courts below.

Defendant has now fully litigated 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 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. Defendant's claims have now been fully litigated in accord with La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.6. Hereafter, unless he can show that one of the narrow exceptions authorizing the filing of a successive application applies, defendant 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:

Denied. Relator fails to show any error in the rulings of the courts below.

Defendant has now fully litigated 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 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. Defendant's claims have now been fully litigated in accord with La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.6. Hereafter, unless he can show that one of the narrow exceptions authorizing the filing of a successive application applies, defendant 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)

254 So. 3d 680, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-hurst-la-2018.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack