Case Name: STATE of Louisiana v. Wayne J. TAYLOR
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 2019-06-26
Citations: 275 So. 3d 870
Docket Number: No. 2019-KP-0311
Parties: STATE of Louisiana
v.
Wayne J. TAYLOR
Judges: 
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Third Series
Volume: 275
Pages: 870–871

Head Matter:
STATE of Louisiana
v.
Wayne J. TAYLOR
No. 2019-KP-0311
Supreme Court of Louisiana.
June 26, 2019
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, COURT OF APPEAL, PARISH OF PLAQUEMINES

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Writ granted. The court of appeal erred in its application of Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), to find defendant's trial was rendered fundamentally unfair and the verdict unreliable when counsel's examination of a witness lead to the admission of other crimes evidence that would have otherwise been excluded. See State v. Taylor , 18-0950 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1/23/19) (unpub'd) (Brown, J., dissenting). Based on the evidence presented at trial, which included proof by DNA evidence that defendant had been inside the place of business he was not authorized to enter, see State v. Taylor , 14-0432 (La. 3/17/15), 166 So.3d 988, the district court correctly determined that defendant failed to carry his burden of showing prejudice under Strickland 's second prong. Accordingly, we reverse the court of appeal and reinstate the district court's ruling, which denied defendant's application for post-conviction relief.
Defendant 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 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. Respondent'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, respondent has exhausted his right to state collateral review. The district court is ordered to record a minute entry consistent with this per curiam.
REVERSED
WEIMER, J., would grant and docket