STATE v. CALHOUN (2021)

Supreme Court of Louisiana.2021-03-16No. No. 2019-KH-01822

Summary · law.co

Holding. The writ application was denied. The applicant failed to establish ineffective assistance of counsel and did not satisfy his post-conviction burden of proof on his remaining claims; the applicant has exhausted his right to state collateral review.

The applicant sought post-conviction relief, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel and raising additional claims. The court found that the applicant failed to satisfy the requirements for establishing ineffective assistance under the relevant standard and likewise failed to meet his burden of proof on the remaining claims presented.

The court emphasized that the applicant has now completed full litigation of his post-conviction relief application in state court. Because Louisiana law, as amended in 2013, imposes mandatory procedural bars against successive filings except in narrow circumstances, the applicant has exhausted his right to state collateral review. The court clarified that any future application would require the applicant to demonstrate that he qualifies for one of the limited exceptions permitting successive filings.

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

Key issues

Ineffective assistance of counsel claim
Post-conviction relief burden of proof
Exhaustion of state collateral review
Successive application procedural bars

Procedural posture

The applicant filed an application for post-conviction relief in state court, which was denied by the trial court and is now being reviewed in this appellate decision.

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). 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., would grant in part solely to consider the applicability of Ramos v. Louisiana, ––– U.S. ––––, 140 S.Ct. 1390, 206 L.Ed.2d 583 (2020).