State v. Mayho

Supreme Court of Louisiana

State v. Mayho

177 So. 3d 323, 2015 La. LEXIS 2145, 2015 WL 5919924

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedOctober 9, 2015

DocketNo. 2015-KP-1038

StatusPublished

This text of 177 So. 3d 323 (State v. Mayho) 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. Mayho, 177 So. 3d 323, 2015 La. LEXIS 2145, 2015 WL 5919924 (La. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

h Denied. Relator fails to show that the district court did not act within its discretion when it found the instant counseled claims inexcusably omitted from his prior applications and therefore barred under La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4(E). Moreover, he has not shown that the state withheld material exculpatory evidence in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), or that the state presented any false or misleading testimony entitling him to relief under Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 92 S.Ct. 763, 31 L.Ed.2d 104 (1972).

Relator has now fully litigated at least 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 successive applications 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 La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4 to make the procedural bars bagainst successive filings mandatory. Relator’s [324]*324claims have now been fully litigated in state collateral proceedings in accord with La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.6, and this denial is final. Hereafter, unless relator 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.

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

PER CURIAM.

h Denied. Relator fails to show that the district court did not act within its discretion when it found the instant counseled claims inexcusably omitted from his prior applications and therefore barred under La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4(E). Moreover, he has not shown that the state withheld material exculpatory evidence in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), or that the state presented any false or misleading testimony entitling him to relief under Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 92 S.Ct. 763, 31 L.Ed.2d 104 (1972).

Relator has now fully litigated at least 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 successive applications 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 La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4 to make the procedural bars bagainst successive filings mandatory. Relator’s [324]*324claims have now been fully litigated in state collateral proceedings in accord with La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.6, and this denial is final. Hereafter, unless relator 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

177 So. 3d 323, 2015 La. LEXIS 2145, 2015 WL 5919924, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-mayho-la-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack