State v. Leblanc

Supreme Court of Louisiana

State v. Leblanc

240 So. 3d 918

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedApril 20, 2018

DocketNo. 2016–KP–1485

StatusPublished

This text of 240 So. 3d 918 (State v. Leblanc) 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. Leblanc, 240 So. 3d 918 (La. 2018).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Denied. Relator's application was not timely filed in the district court, and he fails to carry his burden to show that an exception applies. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8 ; State ex rel. Glover v. State , 93-2330 (La. 9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189. In addition, relator's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is repetitive. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4(D).

*919Finally, relator fails to show he is factually innocent of the crimes under the standard of State v. Conway , 01-2808 (La. 4/12/02), 816 So.2d 290.

Relator has now fully litigated two 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. 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.

Hughes, J. would grant the writ in part.

GENOVESE, J., would grant in part and remand only to assess the Brady claim.

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

PER CURIAM:

Denied. Relator's application was not timely filed in the district court, and he fails to carry his burden to show that an exception applies. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8 ; State ex rel. Glover v. State , 93-2330 (La. 9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189. In addition, relator's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is repetitive. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4(D).

*919Finally, relator fails to show he is factually innocent of the crimes under the standard of State v. Conway , 01-2808 (La. 4/12/02), 816 So.2d 290.

Relator has now fully litigated two 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. 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.

Hughes, J. would grant the writ in part.

GENOVESE, J., would grant in part and remand only to assess the Brady claim.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

240 So. 3d 918, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-leblanc-la-2018.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack