State Of Louisiana v. Hanson Boykins

Supreme Court of Louisiana
July 17, 2020
Clerk of Court
For the Court
The Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana
STATE OF LOUISIANA
VS.
HANSON BOYKINS
No.2019-KH-01602
_ _
_ _ _ _
I
N RE: Hanson Boykins - Applicant Defendant; Applying For Supervisory Writ,
Parish of Terrebonne, 32nd Judicial District Court Number(s) 84477, Court of
Appeal, First Circuit, Number(s) 2019 KW 0809;
_ _ _ _ _ _
July 17, 2020
Writ application denied. See per curiam.
W
eimer, J., recused.
JHB
JDH
SJC
JTG
WJC
07/17/2020 "See News Release 026 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents."

07/17/20
S
UPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
No
. 19-KH-1602
S
TATE OF LOUISIANA
v.
H
ANSON BOYKINS
O
N SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE THIRTY-SECOND
JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF TERREBONNE
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 (distinguis hing 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 “deals with pre -conviction complaints concerning
custody.”).
Applicant 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 fi ling 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. Applicant’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

2

show that one of the narrow exceptions authorizing the fi ling 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.