Court Opinion

ID: 4822860
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2021-08-22 09:04:57.37864+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:11:07.443577
License: Public Domain

PER CURIAM.
Denied. Relator has not identified 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, and is untimely. See State ex rel. Glover v. State, 93-2330 (La.9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189. In addition, relator’s claim is not cognizable pursuant to La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.3. See State ex rel. Melinie v. State, 93-1380 (La.1/12/96), 665 So.2d 1172.
Relator has now filed and fully litigated his application for post-conviction relief in the state courts. 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 |2La.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.