Case Name: STATE EX REL. Jimmie DECUIR v. STATE of Louisiana
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 2018-10-08
Citations: 253 So. 3d 1278
Docket Number: No. 2017-KH-1324
Parties: STATE EX REL. Jimmie DECUIR
v.
STATE of Louisiana
Judges: 
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Third Series
Volume: 253
Pages: 1278–1279

Head Matter:
STATE EX REL. Jimmie DECUIR
v.
STATE of Louisiana
No. 2017-KH-1324
Supreme Court of Louisiana.
October 8, 2018
ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF ORLEANS

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Denied. Relator does not 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. As such, it is subject to the time limitation set forth in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8. Relator's convictions and sentences became final in 2013, 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 to the time limitation applies.
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 fails to satisfy his post-conviction burden of proof. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.2.
Relator 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 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.