State v. Tam Le

263 So. 3d 422
CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana
DecidedFebruary 18, 2019
DocketNo. 2018-KP-0085
StatusPublished

This text of 263 So. 3d 422 (State v. Tam Le) 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. Tam Le, 263 So. 3d 422 (La. 2019).

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Denied. Relator fails to show he received ineffective assistance of counsel under the standard of Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).

Relator has now fully litigated his application 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 a second or successive application 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 that article to make the procedural bars against successive filings mandatory. Relator's claims have now been fully litigated in accord with La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.6, and this denial is final. Hereafter, unless he can show that one of the narrow exceptions authorizing the filing of a successive application applies, relator has exhausted his right to state collateral *423review. The district court is ordered to record a minute entry consistent with this per curiam.

Hughes, J., would grant and assigns reasons.

Hughes, J., dissents and would grant the writ.

In this case a police officer with twenty-two years experience testified before the jury that the victims were telling "one-hundred percent the truth," and a school counselor was accepted as an expert and testified that from her "professional perspective" that she saw nothing "inconsistent" with sexual child abuse. It cannot be said that the jury's verdict was surely attributable to these errors, and they are therefore not harmless.

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

Related

Strickland v. Washington
466 U.S. 668 (Supreme Court, 1984)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
263 So. 3d 422, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-tam-le-la-2019.