majority">PER CURIAM.

Granted. The trial court erred in denying the state’s procedural objections to the application for post-conviction relief filed by respondent, in part on grounds that, in the court’s view, the United States Supreme Court’s decision in McQuiggin v. Perkins, 569 U.S.-, 133 S.Ct. 1924, 185 L.Ed.2d 1019 (2013), governs Louisiana post-conviction proceedings and excuses procedural bars that would otherwise result in dismissal. McQuigginheld only that for purposes oí federal habeas corpus law, a convincing claim of actual innocence, “if proved, serves as a gateway through which a petitioner may pass whether the impediment is a procedural bar ... or, as in this case, expiration of the statute of limitations.” Id.,569 U.S. at -, 133 S.Ct. at 1928 (citations omitted). McQuig-gin does not purport to govern state post-*824conviction proceedings conducted under state law, however, and, in any event, respondent has not advanced a convincing claim of actual innocence. Respondent’s claims are either repetitive and time-barred, La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4(A) and (D); La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8, or do not state grounds upon which post-conviction relief may be granted. La.C.Cr.P. art. 928. The state’s procedural objections are therefore sustained and the district court is directed to dismiss respondent’s application.

Citation profile

Relationships

How this case has been treated — in progress