STATE v. SCROGGINS (2021)

Supreme Court of Louisiana.2021-12-21No. No. 2021-KH-01502

Summary · law.co

Holding. The writ application was denied because it was not timely filed and the applicant failed to establish that an exception to the timeliness requirement applied, exhausting his right to state collateral review unless he can show that a narrow exception authorizing a successive application exists.

The applicant sought a writ of post-conviction relief but failed to file the application within the required timeframe and did not demonstrate that any exception to the timeliness requirement applied. The court noted that Louisiana law, similar to federal habeas procedures, restricts successive post-conviction applications to narrow circumstances and enforces mandatory procedural bars against such filings. The applicant had already fully litigated his claims through the appropriate state post-conviction process.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Timeliness of post-conviction writ application
Successive post-conviction filing restrictions
Exhaustion of state collateral review remedies
Exceptions to mandatory procedural bars

Procedural posture

The applicant sought post-conviction relief by writ after having fully litigated a prior application in state district court.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

Writ application denied. See per curiam.

Denied. The application was not timely filed in the district court, and applicant 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.

Applicant has now fully litigated his application 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 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. Applicants 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, applicant has exhausted his right to state collateral review. The district court is ordered to record a minute entry consistent with this per curiam.