Case Name: STATE EX REL. Leonard MCGEE v. STATE of Louisiana
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 2017-03-13
Citations: 212 So. 3d 1159
Docket Number: No. 2015-KH-2084
Parties: STATE EX REL. Leonard MCGEE v. STATE of Louisiana
Judges: 
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Third Series
Volume: 212
Pages: 1159–1160

Head Matter:
STATE EX REL. Leonard MCGEE v. STATE of Louisiana
No. 2015-KH-2084
Supreme Court of Louisiana.
03/13/2017

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
| tDenied. Relator's sentences are authorized by law. See R.S. 14:64, R.S. 14:27, R.S. 14:65.1. As to his claim about the consecutive nature of the sentence terms, his filing is properly construed as an application for post-conviction relief because it protests a discretionary function of the sentencing court, see La.C.Cr.P. Art. 883, and does not pertain to any illegal sentence term. 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, sentencing claims are not cognizable on collateral review. See La.C.Cr.P. Art. 930.3; State ex rel. Melinie v. State, 93-1380 (La. 1/12/96), 665 So.2d 1172. Finally, the application is repetitive. La.C.Cr.P. Art. 930.4.
Relator has now fully litigated several 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. 930.412and 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.