State v. Obney

Louisiana Court of Appeal

State v. Obney

663 So. 2d 69, 1995 WL 407833

CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal

DecidedJuly 6, 1995

DocketNo. 95 00439

StatusPublished

This text of 663 So. 2d 69 (State v. Obney) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Louisiana Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Obney, 663 So. 2d 69, 1995 WL 407833 (La. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

JiWRIT GRANTED AND MADE PEREMPTORY: Relator was convicted of the charged offense and is currently incarcerated, therefore habeas relief is not available to the relator. See La.Code Crim.P. art. 351. However, arbitrary requirements of form and pleading should not be allowed to obstruct access to judicial review. See State v. Higginbotham, 470 So.2d 648 (La.App. 1 Cir.1985); State ex rel Johnson v. Maggio, 440 So.2d 1336 (La.1983). Therefore, the trial court erred in failing to consider relator’s petition as an application for post-conviction relief. As relator’s conviction is final, relator can apply for post-conviction relief. See La.Code Crim.P. art. 924.

Accordingly, we therefore vacate and set aside the trial court’s ruling and remand the relator’s application to the trial court, first to consider if an exception to the time limitations of La.Code Crim.P. art. 930.8 exists, and if such an exception exists, to dispose of the application in accordance with the provisions of La.Code Crim.P. art. 924, et seq.

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

JiWRIT GRANTED AND MADE PEREMPTORY: Relator was convicted of the charged offense and is currently incarcerated, therefore habeas relief is not available to the relator. See La.Code Crim.P. art. 351. However, arbitrary requirements of form and pleading should not be allowed to obstruct access to judicial review. See State v. Higginbotham, 470 So.2d 648 (La.App. 1 Cir.1985); State ex rel Johnson v. Maggio, 440 So.2d 1336 (La.1983). Therefore, the trial court erred in failing to consider relator’s petition as an application for post-conviction relief. As relator’s conviction is final, relator can apply for post-conviction relief. See La.Code Crim.P. art. 924.

Accordingly, we therefore vacate and set aside the trial court’s ruling and remand the relator’s application to the trial court, first to consider if an exception to the time limitations of La.Code Crim.P. art. 930.8 exists, and if such an exception exists, to dispose of the application in accordance with the provisions of La.Code Crim.P. art. 924, et seq.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

663 So. 2d 69, 1995 WL 407833, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-obney-lactapp-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack