Case Name: STATE ex rel. Todd Vincent EDWARDS v. STATE of Louisiana
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 2016-04-15
Citations: 189 So. 3d 383
Docket Number: No. 2015-KH-1099
Parties: STATE ex rel. Todd Vincent EDWARDS v. STATE of Louisiana.
Judges: 
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Third Series
Volume: 189
Pages: 383–383

Head Matter:
STATE ex rel. Todd Vincent EDWARDS v. STATE of Louisiana.
No. 2015-KH-1099.
Supreme Court of Louisiana.
April 15, 2016.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
11 Denied. Relator fails to identify an illegal term in his sentence, and therefore, his filing is properly construed as an application for post-conviction relief. See State v. Parker, 98-0256 (La.5/8/98), 711 So.2d 694. Relator's conviction and sentence became final in 2010, and he does not provide a copy of the application for post-conviction relief filed in the District Court. He fails to offer proof that his application was timely filed in the district court or that an exception applies to the two-year time limitation. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8; State ex rel. Glover v. State, 93-2330 (La.9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189. In addition, relator's claims concerning his habitual offender adjudication are not cognizable on' collateral review. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.3; State ex rel. Melinie v. State, 93-1380 (La.1/12/96), 665 So.2d 1172; see also State v. Cotton, 09-2397 (La.10/15/10), 45 So.3d 1030.
Relator has now fully litigated two applications 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 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.