Court Opinion

ID: 4841986
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2021-08-23 12:19:32.651468+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:11:36.804679
License: Public Domain

ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE SEVENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF CONCORDIA
PER CURIAM:
| iDenied. 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; see also State v. Cotton, 09-2397 (La. 10/15/10), 45 So.3d 1030. As to the remaining claims, relator fails to satisfy his post-conviction burden of proof. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.2.
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 La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4 to make the procedural bars against successive filings mandatory. Relator’s claims have now been fully litigated in state collateral proceedings 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 [ aright to state collateral review. The district court is ordered to record a minute entry consistent with this per curiam.
Johnson, C.J. n.s.
Genovese, J., recused