2019-KH-01658 Precedential Writ application denied. Processed

State Of Louisiana v. Gregory Savage

Louisiana Supreme Court · Filed July 24, 2020

Download PDF

Authorities cited

Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.

State v. Conway 816 So. 2d 290
State Ex Rel. Glover v. State 660 So. 2d 1189

Opinion text

Supreme Court of Louisiana
July 24, 2020
Clerk of Court
For the Court
The Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana
STATE OF LOUISIANA
VS.
GREGORY SAVAGE
No.2019-KH-01658
_ _
_ _ _ _
I
N RE: Gregory Savage - Applicant Defendant; Applying For Supervisory Writ,
Parish of Catahoula, 7th Judicial District Court Number(s) 89- 0307, Court of
Appeal, Third Circuit, Number(s) KH 18-00519;
_ _ _ _ _ _
July 24, 2020
Writ application denied. See per curiam.
JTG
BJJ
JLW
JDH
SJC
WJC
JHB
07/24/2020 "See News Release 027 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents."

p. 2

07/24/20
S
UPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
No
. 19-KH-1658
S
TATE OF LOUISIANA
v.
G
REGORY SAVAGE
O
N SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE SEVENTH
JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF CATAHOULA
PE
R CURIAM:
D
enied. Applicant fails to show he is factually innocent under the standard
of State v. Conway, 01-2808 (La. 4/12/02), 816 So.2d 290. 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.C r.P. art. 930.8; State ex rel. Glover v. State , 93-2330
(La. 9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189.
Applicant has now fully litigated multiple 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 L a. 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 show that one of the narrow exceptions authorizing the filing of a
successive application applies, applicant has exhausted his right to state collateral

p. 3

2

review. The district court is ordered to record a minute entry consistent with this
per curiam.