State v. Thomas

Supreme Court of Louisiana

State v. Thomas

19 So. 3d 466, 2009 La. LEXIS 3008, 2009 WL 3499328

Supreme Court of Louisiana·Decided October 16, 2009·No. 2008-KP-2912·Published·Cited by 65 cases

Opinion

In re State of Louisiana; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 6-98-834; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2008 KW 1586.

Writ granted. Although the district court retains the discretion to allow the amendment and supplementation of timely filed applications for post-conviction relief, see e.g. State ex rel. Foy v. Whitley, 92-1281 (La.10/6/95), 661 So.2d 455, relator’s claims that the court imposed an excessive sentence and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at sentencing are not cognizable on collateral review pursuant to La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.3 and State ex rel. Melinie v. State, 93-1380 (La.1/12/96), 665 So.2d 1172. Accordingly, the lower courts erred when they did not dismiss relator’s supplemental post-conviction application filed on June 25, 2007, as La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.3 “provides no basis for review of claims of excessiveness or other sentencing error post-conviction.” Melinie, supra.

WEIMER, J., recused. JOHNSON, J., would deny.

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

In re State of Louisiana; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 6-98-834; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2008 KW 1586.

Writ granted. Although the district court retains the discretion to allow the amendment and supplementation of timely filed applications for post-conviction relief, see e.g. State ex rel. Foy v. Whitley, 92-1281 (La.10/6/95), 661 So.2d 455, relator’s claims that the court imposed an excessive sentence and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at sentencing are not cognizable on collateral review pursuant to La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.3 and State ex rel. Melinie v. State, 93-1380 (La.1/12/96), 665 So.2d 1172. Accordingly, the lower courts erred when they did not dismiss relator’s supplemental post-conviction application filed on June 25, 2007, as La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.3 “provides no basis for review of claims of excessiveness or other sentencing error post-conviction.” Melinie, supra.

WEIMER, J., recused. JOHNSON, J., would deny.

State v. Thomas, 19 So. 3d 466, 2009 La. LEXIS 3008, 2009 WL 3499328 (La. 2009).

Pincite

19 So. 3d 466 (State v. Thomas) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related