Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

177 So. 3d 708

State ex rel. Nicholson v. State

Supreme Court of Louisiana

Decided October 23, 2015

Supreme Court of Louisiana · decided 2015-10-23

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently April 2019

1 state decisions

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)

Relies on State Ex Rel. Melinie v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2015-10-23

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

PER CURIAM.

¶1| denied. Relator’s sentencing claim is not cognizable on collateral review. See La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.3; State ex rel. Melinie v. State, 93-1380 (La.1/12/96), 665 So.2d 1172.

¶2Similar 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 review.

/177/so3d/708 · .json · Public domain