State v. Daigle

STATE of Louisiana v. Joseph DAIGLE.

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Decided December 23, 1991.

Louisiana Court of Appeal · decided 1991-12-23

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently December 2018

7 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“[t]he trial court has no authority to extend those time limits beyond the delays provided by the legislature.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including State v. Celestine

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1991-12-23

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1 *677 Joseph Daigle, pro se.

¶2J. Nathan Stansbury, Dist. Atty., Lafayette, for the State.

¶3Before GUIDRY, DOUCET and YELVERTON, JJ.

¶4La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8 provides the jurisdictional time limits for filing an application for post-conviction relief. The trial court has no authority to extend those limits beyond the delays provided by the legislature. Therefore, the trial court was correct in denying relator's motion for extension of time and his application for post-conviction relief.

¶5Further, the trial court did not err in denying relator's request for transcripts as he has failed to show a particularized need. Relator's request for a stay of the proceedings is likewise denied.