Court Opinion

ID: 4829480
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2021-08-22 17:24:58.889334+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:11:23.056586
License: Public Domain

PER CURIAM:
| iDenied. Relator fails to show she was denied the effective assistance of counsel under the standard of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). In addition, her 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. Thomas, 08-2912 (La. 10/16/09), 19 So.3d 466. Relator’s claim regarding production of the transcript of the hearing at which she pled guilty is moot.
Relator has now fully litigated her 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 she can show that one of the narrow exceptions authorizing the filing of a successive ^application applies, relator has exhausted her right to state collateral review. The District Court is ordered to record a minute entry consistent with this per curiam.