STATE v. WILLIAMS (2021)

Supreme Court of Louisiana.2021-01-20No. No. 2020-KP-00882

Summary · law.co

Holding. The writ application was denied because the applicant failed to establish ineffective assistance of counsel under the Strickland standard, and the court determined that the applicant has exhausted his state collateral review remedies.

The applicant sought post-conviction relief based on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. The court found that the applicant failed to meet the standard established in Strickland v. Washington for demonstrating ineffective assistance. The court noted that the applicant has already fully litigated his post-conviction application through the state court process and that Louisiana law permits successive applications only under narrow, specific circumstances defined in the state criminal procedure code.

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
Availability of successive post-conviction applications under Louisiana law
Exhaustion of state collateral review remedies

Procedural posture

The applicant filed a writ application for post-conviction relief in state court after having fully litigated a prior post-conviction application.

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).

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.

Hughes, J., would grant.