State v. Leger

Supreme Court of Louisiana

State v. Leger

261 So. 3d 766

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedJanuary 14, 2019

DocketNo. 2017-KP-0416

StatusPublished

This text of 261 So. 3d 766 (State v. Leger) 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. Leger, 261 So. 3d 766 (La. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

I would grant and docket the State's application to answer two significant questions of law before allowing the post-conviction evidentiary hearing, which will require a substantial expenditure of time and resources, to proceed in this matter. First, this court has never squarely addressed the standard by which a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel based on counsel's failure to assert a Batson challenge during jury selection would be evaluated, or whether such a claim is even cognizable on state collateral review. Second, this court has yet to articulate a standard to determine whether the state's ability to respond to an application for post-conviction relief has been materially prejudiced by events not under the control of the State which have transpired since the date of the original conviction. See La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8(B). Both of these issues are presented here, and I believe that in the interest of economy this court should address them before allowing post-conviction proceedings to continue.

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

I would grant and docket the State's application to answer two significant questions of law before allowing the post-conviction evidentiary hearing, which will require a substantial expenditure of time and resources, to proceed in this matter. First, this court has never squarely addressed the standard by which a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel based on counsel's failure to assert a Batson challenge during jury selection would be evaluated, or whether such a claim is even cognizable on state collateral review. Second, this court has yet to articulate a standard to determine whether the state's ability to respond to an application for post-conviction relief has been materially prejudiced by events not under the control of the State which have transpired since the date of the original conviction. See La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8(B). Both of these issues are presented here, and I believe that in the interest of economy this court should address them before allowing post-conviction proceedings to continue.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

261 So. 3d 766, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-leger-la-2019.