STATE v. WATSON (2021)

Supreme Court of Louisiana.2021-03-16No. No. 2021-KH-00088

Summary · law.co

Holding. The writ application is denied. The applicant's filing constitutes a untimely post-conviction relief application that does not meet the statutory exceptions, and the applicant has exhausted state collateral review.

The applicant sought post-conviction relief by filing what he characterized as a writ application, but the court determined his filing actually constituted an application for post-conviction relief. Because the application was not timely filed in the district court under Louisiana Criminal Procedure Article 930.8, and the applicant failed to demonstrate that any exception to the timeliness requirement applied, the court denied the application.

The court noted that the applicant had fully litigated his post-conviction claims in state court and has now exhausted his right to state collateral review. Louisiana law, as amended in 2013, imposes mandatory procedural bars against successive post-conviction filings except under narrow circumstances defined in the Criminal Procedure Code. The applicant may pursue further relief only if he can establish that one of the statutory exceptions permitting successive applications applies.

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 under Louisiana Criminal Procedure Article 930.8
Distinction between writ applications and post-conviction relief applications
Exhaustion of state collateral review and successive filing restrictions
Applicability of statutory exceptions to post-conviction filing deadlines

Procedural posture

The applicant filed what he claimed was a writ application, which the court construed as a post-conviction relief application that was not timely filed in the district court.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

Writ application denied. See per curiam.

Denied. Applicant does not identify an illegal term in his sentence, and therefore, his filing is properly construed as an application for post-conviction relief. See State v. Parker, 98-0256 (La. 5/8/98), 711 So.2d 694. As such, it is subject to the time limitation set forth in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8. 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.

Weimer, C. J., recused.