PER CURIAM.
h Denied. Relator does not demonstrate that he preserved any issues for appellate review when he entered his guilty plea. See State v. Crosby, 338 So.2d 584 (La.1976). Additionally, relator fails to show he received ineffective assistance of counsel during plea negotiations under the standard of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).
Relator 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 outin 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. Relator’s 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, relator has exháusted his right to state collateral review. The District Court is ordered to record a minute entry consistent with this per curiam.