Court Opinion

ID: 6530394
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-19 20:15:38.855971+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:55:20.554489
License: Public Domain

PER CURIAM:
| denied. Relator fails to show he received ineffective assistance of counsel under the standard of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). Relator also fails to show the District Court erred when it rejected his claims premised on an alternate version of events, which he inexcusably omitted from the proceedings leading to conviction. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4(B).
Relator has now fully litigated his 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 he can show that one of the narrow exceptions authorizing the filing of a successive 12application 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.