Case Name: STATE ex rel. Charles ALLEN v. STATE of Louisiana
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 2016-06-17
Citations: 194 So. 3d 1106
Docket Number: No. 2015-KH-1377
Parties: STATE ex rel. Charles ALLEN v. STATE of Louisiana.
Judges: 
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Third Series
Volume: 194
Pages: 1106–1107

Head Matter:
STATE ex rel. Charles ALLEN v. STATE of Louisiana.
No. 2015-KH-1377.
Supreme Court of Louisiana.
June 17, 2016.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
| denied. Relator does not identify an illegal term in his sentence, and therefore, his ffling 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 application was not timely filed in the district court, and he fails to carry his burdén 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. In addition, relator's sentencing claim is 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. We attach hereto and make a part hereof the District Court's written reasons denying relator's application.
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 |2successive 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.