STATE v. SCOTT (2021)

Supreme Court of Louisiana.2021-04-20No. No. 2021-KH-00278

Summary · law.co

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

The applicant sought post-conviction relief through a writ application, but the court found the filing did not meet procedural requirements. The application was not submitted to the district court within the required timeframe, and the applicant failed to demonstrate that any exception to the timeliness rule applied. Louisiana law, particularly as amended in 2013, establishes strict procedural rules governing successive post-conviction applications, mirroring the framework used in federal habeas corpus proceedings.

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

Key issues

Timeliness of post-conviction relief application
Applicability of exceptions to filing deadlines
Successive post-conviction applications under Louisiana law
Exhaustion of state collateral review remedies

Procedural posture

The applicant sought post-conviction relief through a writ application in state court after having fully litigated an earlier application for post-conviction relief.

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.