State v. Owen

Louisiana Court of Appeal

State v. Owen

663 So. 2d 46, 95 La.App. 3 Cir. 00407, 1995 La. App. LEXIS 1935, 1995 WL 408656

CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal

DecidedJune 29, 1995

DocketNo. 95 00407

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 663 So. 2d 46 (State v. Owen) 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. Owen, 663 So. 2d 46, 95 La.App. 3 Cir. 00407, 1995 La. App. LEXIS 1935, 1995 WL 408656 (La. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

WRIT DENIED: There is no error in the trial court’s ruling denying relator’s application for post-conviction relief as untimely. Relator’s public records request, upon which relator’s current application is based, was filed almost ten (10) years after relator’s conviction became'final and nearly three (3) years after the time limitation for filing for post-conviction relief had expired. See La.Code Crim.P. art. 930.8 A(3). We find, as did the trial court, that the relator failed to take reasonable steps to pursue his claims within the statutorily mandated filing deadline and that relator has therefore stated no ground warranting an exception to the article 930.8 time limitations. Further, article 930.8 does not require the trial court notify the relator and afford him an opportunity to respond prior to dismissing the relator’s application as untimely.

For these reasons, relator’s writ application is denied.

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

WRIT DENIED: There is no error in the trial court’s ruling denying relator’s application for post-conviction relief as untimely. Relator’s public records request, upon which relator’s current application is based, was filed almost ten (10) years after relator’s conviction became'final and nearly three (3) years after the time limitation for filing for post-conviction relief had expired. See La.Code Crim.P. art. 930.8 A(3). We find, as did the trial court, that the relator failed to take reasonable steps to pursue his claims within the statutorily mandated filing deadline and that relator has therefore stated no ground warranting an exception to the article 930.8 time limitations. Further, article 930.8 does not require the trial court notify the relator and afford him an opportunity to respond prior to dismissing the relator’s application as untimely.

For these reasons, relator’s writ application is denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

663 So. 2d 46, 95 La.App. 3 Cir. 00407, 1995 La. App. LEXIS 1935, 1995 WL 408656, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-owen-lactapp-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack