Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

904 So. 2d 681

State v. Theard

Supreme Court of Louisiana

Decided June 17, 2005

Supreme Court of Louisiana · decided 2005-06-17

Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently December 2018

9 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“A. No application for post-conviction relief, including applications which seek an out-of-time appeal, shall be considered if it is filed more than two years after the judgment of conviction and sentence has become final under the provisions of Article 914 or 922, unless any of the following apply: (.1) The application alleges, and the petitioner proves or the state admits, that the facts upon which the claim is predicated were not known to the petitioner or his attorney.”

quoted by 2 later decisions, including 167 So. 3d 917 - State v. Russell, 159 So. 3d 482 - State v. Davis

Relies on 660 So. 2d 1189 - State Ex Rel. Glover v. State · 338 So. 2d 584 - State v. Crosby

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2005-06-17

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1In re State of Louisiana; — -Plaintiff; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. I, No. 281-985; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No(s). 2003-KA-1794, 2003-KA-1794.

¶2Granted. The courts below erred by considering the merits of the defendant’s Crosby reservation, see State v. Crosby, 338 So.2d 584 (La.1976), in an out-of-time appeal granted years after finality of the defendant’s conviction and sentence. See La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8(A) (“No application for post-conviction relief including applications which seek an out-of-time appeal, shall be considered if it is filed more than two years after the judgment of conviction and sentence has become final .”); State ex rel. Glover v. State, 93-2330, p. 22 (La.9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189, 1201 (“[T]he fact that the trial court reached the merits in an untimely filed application for post conviction relief ... [does] not preclude [an appellate court] from raising Art. 930.8’s time bar.”). The decision of the court of appeal is therefore reversed and the defendant’s conviction and sentence are reinstated.

CALOGERO, C.J., would deny the writ.WEIMER, J., would deny the writ.
/904/so2d/681 · .json · Public domain