Clerk of Court For the Court Jerrod A. Wilson v. State Of Louisiana

The Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana
Clerk of Court
For the Court
JERROD A. WILSON
VS.
STATE OF LOUISIANA
No.2019-KH-01533
_ _ _ _ _ _
IN RE: Jerrod A. Wilson - Applicant Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory Writ,
Parish of West Feliciana, 20th Judicial District Court Number(s) 08304, Court of
Appeal, First Circuit, Number(s) 2019CW0545;
_ _ _ _ _ _
August 14, 2020
Writ application denied. See per curiam.
JHB
BJJ
JLW
JDH
SJC
JTG
WJC
Supreme Court of Louisiana
August 14, 2020
08/14/2020 "See News Release 029 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents."

08/14/20
S
UPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
No
. 19-KH-1533
J
ERROD A. WILSON
v.
S
TATE OF LOUISIANA
O
N SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE TWENTIETH
JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF WEST FELICIANA
PE
R CURIAM:
D
enied. The application was not timely filed in the district court, and
applicant fails to carry his burden to show that an exception applies. La.C.Cr.P. art.
930.8; see State ex rel. Glover v. State , 93-2330, pp. 9-11 (La. 9/5/95), 660 So.2d
1189, 1195 -96 (distingu ishing habeas corpus from post- conviction relief and
endorsing La.C.Cr.P. art. 351 and its cmt. (c), which states that “habeas corpus is
not the proper procedural device for petitioners who may file applications for post-
conviction relief;” rather, it “de als with pre -conviction complaints concerning
custody.”).
Applicant has now fully litigated several applications for post-conviction
relief in state court. Similar to federal habeas relief, see 28 U.S.C. § 2244,
Louisiana post -conviction procedure envision s the filing of a 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. Applicant’s claims have now been fully
litigated in accord with La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.6, and this denial is final. Hereafter,

2

unless he can show that one of the narrow exceptions authorizing the fili ng of a
successive application applies, applicant has exhausted his right to state collateral
review. The district court is ordered to record a minute entry consistent with this
per curiam.