694 SO2D 917 - State v. Ford

How this case has been cited

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently February 2017

3 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

PER CURIAM:

¶1Writ granted. The trial court may not avoid the procedural bars of La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4 and La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8 by “reconsidering” an application for post-conviction relief on which it has earlier ruled, see La. C.Cr.P. art. 930.6; La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.6 emt.; State v. Clayton, 96-1658 (La. 2/27/97), 687 So.2d 996; State ex rel. Lewis v. Cr.D.C., 571 So.2d 659 (La.1991), especially when, as here, this Court has considered and rejected the claims. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4(D); State v. Ford, 94-2883 (La. 2/3/95), 649 So.2d 404; State ex rel. Ford v. Blackburn, 513 So.2d 816 (La.1987). In any event, Ford’s claims otherwise lack merit. See State v. Hamilton, 478 So.2d 123, 128-29 (La.1985); State v. Mack, 403 So.2d 8, 9-10 (La.1981); State v. Smith, 91-0749 (La. 5/23/94), 637 So.2d 398, cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1045, 115 S.Ct. 641, 130 L.Ed.2d 546 (1994); Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 2064, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).

¶2KIMBALL, J., not on panel.