STATE v. BAUMBERGER (2021)

Supreme Court of Louisiana.2021-01-20No. No. 2020-KP-01097

Summary · law.co

Holding. The writ application for post-conviction relief was denied because the applicant showed no entitlement to DNA testing and had exhausted his right to state collateral review.

The applicant sought DNA testing as part of a post-conviction relief application. The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate entitlement to DNA testing under the relevant Louisiana statute. The court also noted that the applicant had already fully litigated his post-conviction claims through the state court system and that any future applications would be barred unless he could satisfy the narrow exceptions for successive filings established by Louisiana law.

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

Key issues

Entitlement to post-conviction DNA testing
Exhaustion of state collateral review remedies
Procedural bars against successive post-conviction applications

Procedural posture

The applicant filed a post-conviction relief application seeking DNA testing after having previously litigated similar claims in state court.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

Writ application denied. See per curiam.

Denied. Applicant shows no entitlement to DNA testing. See La.C.Cr.P. art. 926.1.

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.