Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

227 So. 3d 802

State ex rel. Texada v. State

Supreme Court of Louisiana

Decided October 9, 2017

Supreme Court of Louisiana · decided 2017-10-09

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 660 So. 2d 1189 - State Ex Rel. Glover v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2017-10-09

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE TWENTY-SEVENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF ST. LANDRY

PER CURIAM:

¶2| denied. The application was not timely filed in the district court, and relator fails to carry his burden to. show that an exception applies. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8; State ex rel. Glover v. State, 93-2330 (La. 9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189. The application is also repetitive. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4.

¶3Relator has’ now fully litigated at least 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 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. The district court is ordered to record a minute entry consistent with this per curiam.

Genovese, J., recused.
/227/so3d/802 · .json · Public domain