Writ application denied.
I would grant the writ application in this wrongful conviction compensation matter, reverse the ruling of the appellate court, and remand the case to the trial court with instructions to consider it under the burden of proof explained in our recent opinion in Jones v. State, 2022-01455 (La. 5/5/23), 362 So.3d 341. In Jones, this Court explained that the extraordinarily high standard applied in Burrell v. State, 50,157, (La. App. 2d Cir. 1/13/16), 184 So.3d 246—requiring a petitioner to present new, material, noncumulative, and conclusive evidence that undermines the prosecutions entire case—does not apply when analyzing cases under the wrongful conviction compensation statute.
I am persuaded by Judge Molaisons dissent below, and likewise disagree with the appellate courts decision to conduct a de novo review of the evidence and decide the merits of Alexanders claims. Jones was decided while this case was pending before the appellate court—after the trial court issued its judgment. As explained by Judge Molaison, by reviewing the case de novo, the appellate court “in essence, penalize[d] the trial court for not being prescient, usurp[ed] its ability to exercise its discretion, and foreclose[d] on the opportunity to correct its perceived mistake.” State v. Alexander, 22-12, p. 3 (La. App. 5 Cir. 6/21/23), 367 So.3d 867, 889 (Molaison, J., dissenting). I would grant the writ application to allow the trial court, which received the evidence and testimony, to reconsider the matter under the correct standard.
I concur in the writ denial. See Jones v. State, 22-01455, (La. 5/5/23), 362 So.3d 341, 346-47 (Crain dissenting).
Crichton, J., would grant and assigns reasons.
Crain, J., concurs and assigns reasons.
McCallum, J., would grant for reasons assigned by Crichton, J.