Court Opinion

ID: 9397464
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-25 16:06:45.742969+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:25.892140
License: Public Domain

A          A

STATE       OF   LOUISIANA                                                                    NO.     2023    KW       0257

VERSUS

CHRISTOPHER            MICHAEL           SPIEHLER                                                  MAY      25,        2023

In    Re:         Christopher                     Michael    Spiehler,        applying               for    supervisory
                  writs,         22nd              Judicial        District            Court,         Parish    of  St.

                  Tammany,           No.           491497.

BEFORE:           GUIDRY,        C. J.,            WOLFE     AND   MILLER,         JJ.

        WRIT       DENIED.           A       jury      convicted         relator          of       aggravated           rape,

simple        kidnapping,                and       multiple        counts     of       pornography            involving
juveniles.              The     exception                 to       the    procedural                 bar      and           time
limitation             set    forth           in    La.     Code    Crim.     P.       arts.         930. 4   and        930. 8
shall       apply only to                a        substantive       claim of            factual           innocence          and
shall       not    apply to                  any     other     claims       raised            by    the     petitioner.

See     La.      Code  Crim.                 P.     arts.      926. 2( A) & (           B).        Relator        presents

ANnontestimonial               evidence"              regarding La.             Const.             art.    I, §        17    and

La.     Code       Crim.        P.           art.     782  as  they             existed             prior         to     their
amendment          in        2018.                These     allegations            and        the     nontestimonial

evidence          submitted              by        relator      have     no     bearing              on    his         factual
innocence          in    this        case.
                                                    Accordingly,          the      district               court    did       not
abuse            its         discretion                by   denying                    the        application                for
postconviction                relief.

COURT       OF APPEAL,          FIRST             CIRCUIT

                                         O

        DEPUTY         CLERK OF COURT
                  FOR    THE     COURT