Source: http://la.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180329_0000250.MLA.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 17:00:56+00:00

Document:
Before the Court is Petitioner's Motion for Stay and Abeyance (R. Doc. 10), pursuant to which he seeks a delay in the prosecution of this habeas corpus proceeding while he pursues exhaustion of state court remedies relative to several admittedly unexhausted claims. For the reasons expressed below, Petitioner's Motion is DENIED.
Petitioner Antonius Jones commenced this proceeding by filing an application for habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner challenges the constitutionality of his 2011 state court conviction and sentence for second degree murder and armed robbery. Petitioner asserts (1) that his Indictment was deficient; (2) that he was denied compulsory process because he was not allowed to call a witness concerning DNA testing; (3) that his criminal defense attorney provided ineffective assistance of counsel in several respects, including by failing to challenge the sufficiency of the Indictment, failing to make a specific objection upon denial of his motion to suppress his "involuntary" confession, failing to request DNA testing, failing to object to the introduction of his confession, and failing to properly litigate a Fourth Amendment claim relative to his confession; (4) that his conviction was based upon an involuntary confession; (5) that there was insufficient evidence to support a finding that he committed the offense of armed robbery; and (6) that there was insufficient evidence to support a finding that he committed the offense of second degree murder.
A review of Petitioner's application reflects that he pursued a direct appeal from his conviction and sentence, asserting the two interrelated claims (Nos. 5 and 6 above) that there was insufficient evidence to support a finding that he committed the offenses charged. The Louisiana Court of Appeal for the First Circuit affirmed Petitioner's conviction and sentence on December 21, 2012. State v. Jones, 2012 WL 6681806 (La.App. 1 Cir. Dec. 21, 2012) (unpublished). Petitioner thereafter sought further review before the Louisiana Supreme Court, which Court denied review on September 13, 2013. State v. Jones, 2013-0356 (La. 9/13/13); 120 So.3d 691.
Relator has now exhausted his right to obtain 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. Relator has filed an application for post-conviction relief in the District Court, and the District Court's ruling denying relief is now 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.
One of the threshold requirements for a federal habeas corpus application under § 2254 is that, subject to certain exceptions, a petitioner must have first exhausted in state court all of his claims before presenting them for review before the federal district court. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1) ("An application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court shall not be granted unless it appears that . . . the applicant has exhausted the remedies available in the courts of the State.) The Supreme Court has interpreted § 2254(b)(1) to require dismissal of a habeas corpus petition if it contains even a single unexhausted claim - the "total exhaustion" requirement. Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 518-19 (1982).
Staying a federal habeas petition frustrates AEDPA's objective of encouraging finality by allowing a petitioner to delay the resolution of the federal proceedings. It also undermines ADEPA's goal of streamlining federal habeas proceedings by decreasing a petitioner's incentive to exhaust all his claims in state court prior to filing his federal petition .... For these reasons, stay and abeyance should be available only in limited circumstances. Because granting a stay effectively excuses a petitioner's failure to present his claims first to the state courts, stay and abeyance is only appropriate when the district court determines there was good cause for the petitioner's failure to exhaust his claims first in state court.

References: § 2254
 v. 
 v. 
 § 2244
 art. 930
 art. 930
 § 2254
 § 2254
 § 2254
 v.