Case ID: so2d_616/html/0671-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "LEMMON, Justice,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

STATE of Louisiana v. Eugene WASHINGTON.
    No. 92-KK-2912.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 23, 1993.
   In re Washington, Eugene; — Defendants); applying for supervisory and/or remedial writs; Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court, Div.“B”, No. 302-319; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 92KW-1478.

Denied.

LEMMON, J., concurs with reasons.

CALOGERO, C.J., and ORTIQUE, J., would grant and order an evidentiary hearing.

DENNIS, J., not on panel.

LEMMON, Justice,

concurring.

In his application for post-conviction relief relator makes no showing that the subpoenaed witness who could not be served for his trial at the address given has now been located. Therefore, even if his trial attorney had asked for (and obtained) a continuance, there is no showing that the result would have been different in a trial after the continuance. Moreover, relator’s alibi testimony that he was at a birthday party at the time of the crime could have been corroborated by other witnesses from the party. Relator fails to meet the prejudice prong of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).