Case Name: STATE EX REL. Delis PIERRE v. STATE of Louisiana
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 2018-05-25
Citations: 243 So. 3d 562
Docket Number: No. 2017–KH–0385
Parties: STATE EX REL. Delis PIERRE
v.
STATE of Louisiana
Judges: 
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Third Series
Volume: 243
Pages: 562–562

Head Matter:
STATE EX REL. Delis PIERRE
v.
STATE of Louisiana
No. 2017-KH-0385
Supreme Court of Louisiana.
May 25, 2018
ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE TWENTY-FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF TANGIPAHOA

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Writ denied. Relator fails to show recusal was required under the standard of Rippo v. Baker , - U.S. -, 137 S.Ct. 905, 197 L.Ed.2d 167 (2017). Relator also fails to show the state withheld material exculpatory evidence in violation of Brady v. Maryland , 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963). In addition, relator fails to show he received ineffective assistance of counsel under the standard of Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). Finally, relator's remaining claims were not timely filed in the district court, and relator fails to carry his burden to show that an exception applies. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8 ; State ex rel. Glover v. State , 93-2330 (La. 9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189.
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 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.