State v. Selva

Supreme Court of Louisiana

State v. Selva

858 So. 2d 1280, 2003 La. LEXIS 2444, 2003 WL 22158045

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedSeptember 19, 2003

DocketNo. 2003-KP-1894

StatusPublished

This text of 858 So. 2d 1280 (State v. Selva) 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. Selva, 858 So. 2d 1280, 2003 La. LEXIS 2444, 2003 WL 22158045 (La. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Granted. The court of appeal’s order is vacated, and the district court’s judgments dismissing relator’s original application for post-conviction relief on the merits without an evidentiary hearing, and his supplemental and amending petition, requesting an evidentiary hearing on a new claim, as premature, are reinstated. Because a defendant may enter a voluntary guilty plea while maintaining his actual innocence, the victim’s recantation of her initial accusation, over two years after relator entered his guilty plea, does not provide grounds for setting aside relator’s otherwise knowing and intelligent decision to forego trial and to enter a guilty plea “in his best interest.” See North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 27, 91 S.Ct. 160, 167, 27 L.Ed.2d 162 (1970). Relator’s supplemental claim, first made after the court denied post-conviction relief, is in the nature of a successive application raising a new claim omitted from his original application. The court of appeal therefore erred in ordering the court to conduct a hearing on the claim before the state has lodged its procedural objections and before the court has ruled on those objections or considered whether “the factual and legal issues” raised in the claim may be disposed of summarily “without further proceedings.” La.C.Cr.P. art. 929.

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

PER CURIAM.

Granted. The court of appeal’s order is vacated, and the district court’s judgments dismissing relator’s original application for post-conviction relief on the merits without an evidentiary hearing, and his supplemental and amending petition, requesting an evidentiary hearing on a new claim, as premature, are reinstated. Because a defendant may enter a voluntary guilty plea while maintaining his actual innocence, the victim’s recantation of her initial accusation, over two years after relator entered his guilty plea, does not provide grounds for setting aside relator’s otherwise knowing and intelligent decision to forego trial and to enter a guilty plea “in his best interest.” See North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 27, 91 S.Ct. 160, 167, 27 L.Ed.2d 162 (1970). Relator’s supplemental claim, first made after the court denied post-conviction relief, is in the nature of a successive application raising a new claim omitted from his original application. The court of appeal therefore erred in ordering the court to conduct a hearing on the claim before the state has lodged its procedural objections and before the court has ruled on those objections or considered whether “the factual and legal issues” raised in the claim may be disposed of summarily “without further proceedings.” La.C.Cr.P. art. 929.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

858 So. 2d 1280, 2003 La. LEXIS 2444, 2003 WL 22158045, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-selva-la-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack