2019-KP-01663 Precedential Writ application denied. Processed

State Of Louisiana v. Timothy Thibodeaux

Louisiana Supreme Court · Filed July 24, 2020

Also decided on this docket: La., November 24, 2020

Authorities cited

Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.

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.
TIMOTHY THIBODEAUX
No.2019-KP-01663
_ _
_ _ _ _
I
N RE: State of Louisiana - Applicant Plaintiff; Applying For Writ Of Certiorari,
Parish of Lafourche, 17th Judicial District Court Number(s) 475003, Court of
Appeal, First Circuit, Number(s) 2019 KW 0978;
_ _ _ _ _ _
July 24, 2020
Writ application denied. See per curiam.
Hughes, J., would grant.
Weimer, J., recused.
Crain, J., recused.
JHB
BJJ
SJC
JTG
07/24/2020 "See News Release 027 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents."

07/24/20
S
UPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
No
. 19-KP-1663
S
TATE OF LOUISIANA
v.
TI
MOTHY THIBODEAUX
O
N SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE SEVENTEENTH
JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF LAFOURCHE
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; State ex rel. Glover v. State , 93 -2330 (La. 9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189. The
application is also repetitive. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4.
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
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.