2003-KP-2640 Precedential Processed

State v. Lanieu

Louisiana Supreme Court · Filed October 1, 2004 · 885 So. 2d 512

Cited by

Jones v. Cain 151 So. 3d 781 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
Timothy J. Guidry v. J. Phil Haney La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
Guidry v. Haney 999 So. 2d 1167 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
State ex rel. Walker v. State 920 So. 2d 213 La. 2006
State v. Michael 891 So. 2d 109 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2005

Authorities cited

Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.

Carlin v. Cain 706 So. 2d 968

Opinion text

885 So.2d 512 (2004) STATE of Louisiana v. Clemone W. LANIEU. No. 2003-KP-2640. Supreme Court of Louisiana. October 1, 2004. PER CURIAM. Writ granted in part; otherwise denied; case remanded to the district court. Relator filed an application for post-conviction relief containing a claim predicated on facts not known to him or his attorney at trial, and accordingly satisfied the criteria of La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8(A)(1) for an exception to the prescriptive period. The fact that relator discovered the new facts before the prescriptive period had run but did not file until after it had run does not make his application untimely. Instead, if delays caused by matters outside the control of the state have prejudiced the state, it may invoke La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8(B) and demand a hearing on that issue. If the state demonstrates prejudice under that article, the district court shall dismiss the application. If it does not, the district court shall consider the claim on the merits. See generally Carlin v. Cain, 97-2390 (La.3/13/98), 706 So.2d 968 . TRAYLOR and KNOLL, JJ., would deny the writ application.