State v. Vining

Supreme Court of Louisiana

State v. Vining

175 So. 3d 392, 2015 La. LEXIS 1934, 2015 WL 5671177

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedSeptember 25, 2015

DocketNo. 2015-KP-0921

StatusPublished

This text of 175 So. 3d 392 (State v. Vining) 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. Vining, 175 So. 3d 392, 2015 La. LEXIS 1934, 2015 WL 5671177 (La. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

[ ]Writ denied. LaC.Cr.P. art. 930.8; State ex rel. Glover v. State, 93-2330 (La.9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189. ' Relator’s application was clearly untimely, and he has not satisfied the exception to the prescriptive period for facts not known set out in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8(A)(1). See also La. C.Cr.P. art. 930.8(B) and La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4(E).

Relator’s and his co-defendant’s convictions and sentences became final more than two decades ágo. State v. Edwards, 416 So.2d 1303 (La.1982); Relator has now filed and litigated three applications 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. 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 appli[393]*393cation appliés, relator has exhausted his right to state collateral review.

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

PER CURIAM.

[ ]Writ denied. LaC.Cr.P. art. 930.8; State ex rel. Glover v. State, 93-2330 (La.9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189. ' Relator’s application was clearly untimely, and he has not satisfied the exception to the prescriptive period for facts not known set out in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8(A)(1). See also La. C.Cr.P. art. 930.8(B) and La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4(E).

Relator’s and his co-defendant’s convictions and sentences became final more than two decades ágo. State v. Edwards, 416 So.2d 1303 (La.1982); Relator has now filed and litigated three applications 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. 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 appli[393]*393cation appliés, relator has exhausted his right to state collateral review.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

175 So. 3d 392, 2015 La. LEXIS 1934, 2015 WL 5671177, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-vining-la-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack