Case Name: STATE of Louisiana v. Elbert CHINN
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 2019-05-20
Citations: 271 So. 3d 1267
Docket Number: No. 2018-KH-1505
Parties: STATE of Louisiana
v.
Elbert CHINN
Judges: 
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Third Series
Volume: 271
Pages: 1267–1268

Head Matter:
STATE of Louisiana
v.
Elbert CHINN
No. 2018-KH-1505
Supreme Court of Louisiana.
May 20, 2019
Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 08-6437; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 18-KH-379
ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE TWENTY-FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF JEFFERSON

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Denied. Applicant 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. The application was not timely filed in the district court, and applicant 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. Applicant'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 ; see also State v. Cotton , 09-2397 (La. 10/15/10), 45 So.3d 1030.
Applicant 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 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. Applicant'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, applicant 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.