Court Opinion

ID: 4829165
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2021-08-22 17:00:24.082215+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:11:22.002852
License: Public Domain

PER CURIAM:
|, Denied. The application was not timely filed in the district court, and relator fails to carry his burden to show that an excep*368tion applies. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8; State ex rel. Glover v. State, 93-2330 (La. 9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189. Moreover, even assuming relator could overcome the procedural bars set out in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4 and La. C.Cr.P. art. 930.8, he fails to show the state withheld material exculpatory evidence in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963). We attach hereto and make a part hereof the District Court’s written reasons denying relator’s application.
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 |2is 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. The District Court is ordered to record a minute entry consistent with this per curiam.
Attachment
*369[[Image here]]
*370[[Image here]]