Clerk of Court For the Court State Of Louisiana v. Mary Douglas

The Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana
Clerk of Court
For the Court
STATE OF LOUISIANA
VS.
MARY DOUGLAS
No.2019-KH-01938
_ _ _ _ _ _
IN RE: Mary Douglas - Applicant Defendant; Applying For Supervisory Writ,
Parish of West Baton Rouge, 18th Judicial District Court Number(s) 11-3542, Court
of Appeal, First Circuit, Number(s) 2019 KW 0691;
_ _ _ _ _ _
September 23, 2020
Writ application denied. See per curiam.
JLW
JDH
SJC
JTG
WJC
JHB
Supreme Court of Louisiana
September 23, 2020
09/23/2020 "See News Release 034 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents."

09/23/20
S
UPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
No
. 19-KH-1938
S
TATE OF LOUISIANA
v.
MARY DO
UGLAS
O
N SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE EIGHTEENTH
JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF WEST BATON ROUGE
PE
R CURIAM:
D
enied. App licant fails to show that she received ineffective assistance of
counsel under the standard of Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct.
2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). Applicant also fails to show that the state withheld
material exculpatory evidence in violation of Brady v. Maryland , 373 U.S. 83, 83
S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963). As to her remaining claims, applicant fails to
satisfy her post-conviction burden of proof. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.2.
Applicant has now fully litigated her 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. 93 0.4 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 she can
show that one of the narrow exceptions authorizing the filing of a successive

2

application applies, applicant has exhausted her right to state collateral review. The
district court is ordered to record a minute entry consistent with this per curiam.