Clerk of Court For the Court Mark Eurystthee v. State Of Louisiana

The Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana
Clerk of Court
For the Court
MARK EURYSTTHEE
VS.
STATE OF LOUISIANA
No.2019-KH-01799
_ _ _ _ _ _
IN RE: Mark Eurystthee - Applicant Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory Writ,
Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Number(s) 14 -699, 16- 6930, 16-
3931, Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, Number(s) 19-KH-442;
_ _ _ _ _ _
J
uly 31, 2020
Writ application denied.
SJC
BJJ
JLW
JDH
JTG
WJC
JHB
Supreme Court of Louisiana
July 31, 2020
07/31/2020 "See News Release 028 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents."

07/31/20
S
UPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
No
. 19-KH-1799
S
TATE OF LOUISIANA
v.
MARK
EURYSTTHEE
O
N SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE TWENTY-FOURTH
JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF JEFFERSON
PE
R CURIAM:
D
enied. Applicant’s complaint about the indictment fails because the time
for testing the sufficiency of an indictment or bill of information is before trial, by
way of a motion to quash or a motion for a bill of particulars. State v. Thibodeaux,
98-1673, p. 18 (La. 9/8/99), 750 So.2d 916, 930 (La. 1999) (citing State v. Gainey,
37
6 So.2d 1240, 1243 (La. 1979)); cf. State v. Williams, 480 So.2d 721, 722, n.1
(La. 1985) (post -verdict attacks on indictment generally fail unless the indictment
did not provide fair notice of the offense charged or failed to set forth any
identifiable offense).
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 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. 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 filing 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.