Case Name: STATE EX REL. Eugene Tyrone WATKINS v. STATE of Louisiana
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 2018-08-03
Citations: 250 So. 3d 256
Docket Number: No. 2017-KH-0765
Parties: STATE EX REL. Eugene Tyrone WATKINS
v.
STATE of Louisiana
Judges: 
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Third Series
Volume: 250
Pages: 256–256

Head Matter:
STATE EX REL. Eugene Tyrone WATKINS
v.
STATE of Louisiana
No. 2017-KH-0765
Supreme Court of Louisiana.
August 3, 2018
ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF CADDO

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Denied. Relator's 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 application was not timely filed in the district court, and he 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. In addition, his claim is non-cognizable and repetitive. La.C.Cr.P. arts. 930.3 and 930.4 ; 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 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.
HUGHES, J., would grant.
CRICHTON, J., recused.