State v. Wright

Louisiana Court of Appeal

State v. Wright

641 So. 2d 631, 1994 La. App. LEXIS 2209, 1994 WL 388684

CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal

DecidedJuly 21, 1994

DocketNo. 26789-KH

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 641 So. 2d 631 (State v. Wright) 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. Wright, 641 So. 2d 631, 1994 La. App. LEXIS 2209, 1994 WL 388684 (La. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

WRIT DENIED.

Pursuant to LSA-C.Cr.P. Art. 930.8, petitioner’s claim for post-conviction relief was properly denied. Petitioner’s conviction became final in September 1988; his application for post-conviction relief should have been filed on or before October 1, 1991.

Further, petitioner’s claims alleging that LSA-C.Cr.P. Art. 930.8 cannot be retroactively applied to him are without merit. LSA-C.Cr.P. Art. 930.8 is not a prohibited ex post facto application of law — it does not operate to punish as a crime acts innocent when done, nor does it increase the punishment for crimes or reduce the defenses available to petitioner at the time the offense was committed. Collins v. Youngblood, 497 U.S. 37, 42, 110 S.Ct. 2715, 2719, 111 L.Ed.2d 30 (1990).

[632]*632Similarly, because post-conviction relief is analogous to a civil action (Harrison v. Norris, 569 So.2d 585 (La.App.2d Cir.1990); Lemmon v. Connick, 590 So.2d 574 (La.1991)), its retroactive application is permissible because the legislature provided a reasonable time in which such claims might be brought before they were foreclosed. Reichenphader v. Allstate Insurance Co., 418 So.2d 648 (La.1982).

Finally, in light of Louisiana’s generous scheme of post-conviction relief, a three-year time limitation is reasonable even when applied retroactively. See Murch v. Mottram, 409 U.S. 41, 93 S.Ct. 71, 34 L.Ed.2d 194 (1972) (upholding a state limitation on post-conviction relief requiring prisoners to assert all claims in a single proceeding). Our orderly post-conviction relief procedure provides several safeguards that protect applicants whose claims are not known or reasonably knowable before the time limit expires. This procedure ensures access to Louisiana courts for those with legitimate claims while reducing piecemeal litigation and dilatory or groundless claims. As did the Murch limitation, LSA-C.Cr.P. Art. 930.8 furthers these important interests. The legislature ensured protection of valid claims with LSA-C.Cr.P. Art. 930.8(A)(3) when it applied the time limitation retroactively; the interrelated protections should not be disturbed.

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

WRIT DENIED.

Pursuant to LSA-C.Cr.P. Art. 930.8, petitioner’s claim for post-conviction relief was properly denied. Petitioner’s conviction became final in September 1988; his application for post-conviction relief should have been filed on or before October 1, 1991.

Further, petitioner’s claims alleging that LSA-C.Cr.P. Art. 930.8 cannot be retroactively applied to him are without merit. LSA-C.Cr.P. Art. 930.8 is not a prohibited ex post facto application of law — it does not operate to punish as a crime acts innocent when done, nor does it increase the punishment for crimes or reduce the defenses available to petitioner at the time the offense was committed. Collins v. Youngblood, 497 U.S. 37, 42, 110 S.Ct. 2715, 2719, 111 L.Ed.2d 30 (1990).

[632]*632Similarly, because post-conviction relief is analogous to a civil action (Harrison v. Norris, 569 So.2d 585 (La.App.2d Cir.1990); Lemmon v. Connick, 590 So.2d 574 (La.1991)), its retroactive application is permissible because the legislature provided a reasonable time in which such claims might be brought before they were foreclosed. Reichenphader v. Allstate Insurance Co., 418 So.2d 648 (La.1982).

Finally, in light of Louisiana’s generous scheme of post-conviction relief, a three-year time limitation is reasonable even when applied retroactively. See Murch v. Mottram, 409 U.S. 41, 93 S.Ct. 71, 34 L.Ed.2d 194 (1972) (upholding a state limitation on post-conviction relief requiring prisoners to assert all claims in a single proceeding). Our orderly post-conviction relief procedure provides several safeguards that protect applicants whose claims are not known or reasonably knowable before the time limit expires. This procedure ensures access to Louisiana courts for those with legitimate claims while reducing piecemeal litigation and dilatory or groundless claims. As did the Murch limitation, LSA-C.Cr.P. Art. 930.8 furthers these important interests. The legislature ensured protection of valid claims with LSA-C.Cr.P. Art. 930.8(A)(3) when it applied the time limitation retroactively; the interrelated protections should not be disturbed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

641 So. 2d 631, 1994 La. App. LEXIS 2209, 1994 WL 388684, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-wright-lactapp-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack