STATE v. COVINGTON (2021)

Supreme Court of Louisiana.2021-04-27No. No. 2021-KH-00264

Summary · law.co

Holding. The writ application was denied because it was not timely filed in district court and the applicant failed to establish that an applicable exception to the timeliness rule existed.

The applicant sought post-conviction relief through a writ application but failed to file it within the required timeframe in district court. The applicant did not demonstrate that any exception to the timeliness requirement applied. Louisiana law, modeled after federal habeas procedures, permits successive post-conviction applications only under narrow, specifically defined circumstances and within strict filing deadlines. The legislature strengthened these procedural bars in 2013 to make them mandatory.

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

Key issues

Timeliness of post-conviction relief applications
Exceptions to mandatory procedural bars for successive filings
Exhaustion of state collateral review remedies
Application of Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure article 930.8

Procedural posture

The applicant filed a second or successive post-conviction relief application that was rejected for failing to comply with statutory filing deadlines and procedural requirements.

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.