STATE v. MCKITHERN (2021)

Supreme Court of Louisiana.2021-04-27No. No. 2020-KH-00904

Summary · law.co

Holding. The application for reconsideration was granted, but the writ application was denied.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a previous denial of his post-conviction relief application and filed a writ application. The court granted the application for reconsideration but denied the writ application. The applicant failed to demonstrate ineffective assistance of counsel under the established test from federal precedent, and some of his claims were repetitive. On his remaining claims, the applicant did not meet the required burden of proof for post-conviction relief under state procedure.

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

Key issues

Whether applicant received ineffective assistance of counsel
Whether applicant satisfied burden of proof for post-conviction relief claims
Exhaustion of state collateral review remedies
Procedural bars to successive post-conviction applications

Procedural posture

The applicant sought reconsideration of a denied post-conviction relief application and pursued a related writ application in state court.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

Application for reconsideration granted. Writ application denied. See per curiam.

Reconsideration granted; writ 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). A portion of the application is repetitive. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4. 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.

FOOTNOTES

FOOTNOTE

. Genovese, Justice, recused

Genovese, J., recused.