Case ID: so3d_232/html/0549-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

STATE EX REL. Martavia D. KING v. STATE of Louisiana
    No. 2016-KH-1327
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    01/09/2018
   ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE FORTY-SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF DE-SOTO

PER CURIAM

| denied. Relator’s guilty plea waived all non-jurisdictional defects in the proceedings leading to his conviction.- State v. Crosby, 338 So.2d 584, 586 (La. 1976). Relator also fails to show that he was denied the effective 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). As to his remaining claim, relator fails to satisfy his post-conviction burden of proof. La,C.Cr.P, art. 930.2.

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 limitation 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. 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 exhausted his right to state collateral review. .The district court is ordered to record a minute entry consistent with this per curiam.