STATE v. HOWARD (2021)

Supreme Court of Louisiana.2021-05-11No. No. 2021-KH-00393

Summary · law.co

Holding. The writ application for post-conviction relief was denied because the applicant failed to establish ineffective assistance of counsel under Strickland, failed to demonstrate Brady violations, and failed to satisfy his burden of proof on remaining claims.

The applicant sought post-conviction relief through a writ application, challenging his conviction on multiple grounds. He claimed ineffective assistance of counsel under the Strickland standard and argued that the state suppressed material exculpatory evidence in violation of Brady. He also raised additional claims that he contended satisfied his burden under Louisiana post-conviction procedure.

The court rejected all of the applicant's contentions. The applicant failed to demonstrate ineffective assistance of counsel, failed to show prosecutorial suppression of exculpatory evidence, and failed to meet his burden of proof on his remaining claims. The court emphasized that because the applicant has now fully litigated his post-conviction application in state court, he has exhausted his right to state collateral review. Future applications would be permissible only under narrow exceptions provided by Louisiana law, and the applicant must comply with applicable time limitations.

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

Key issues

Ineffective assistance of counsel under Strickland v. Washington
Suppression of material exculpatory evidence under Brady v. Maryland
Post-conviction relief eligibility and exhaustion of state remedies
Successive application restrictions under Louisiana post-conviction procedure

Procedural posture

The applicant filed a writ application for post-conviction relief in state court, which was denied by the court.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

Writ application denied. See per curiam.

Denied. Applicant fails to show that he received ineffective assistance of counsel under the standard of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). Applicant also fails to show that the state withheld material exculpatory evidence in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963). As to his remaining claims, applicant fails to satisfy his post-conviction burden of proof. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.2.

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.

Griffin, J., concurs and would deny on the showing made.

Weimer, C. J., recused.