2020-KH-00197 Precedential Writ application denied. Processed

Clerk of Court For the Court State Of Louisiana v. Anderson Clark

Louisiana Supreme Court · Filed September 29, 2020

Authorities cited

Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.

Opinion text

The Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana
Clerk of Court
For the Court
STATE OF LOUISIANA
VS.
ANDERSON CLARK
No.2020-KH-00197
_ _ _ _ _ _
IN RE: Anderson Clark - Applicant Defendant; Applying For Supervisory Writ,
Parish of Orleans Criminal, Criminal District Court Number(s) 358- 792, Court of
Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Number(s) 2019-K-1042;
_ _ _ _ _ _
September 29, 2020
Writ application denied. See per curiam.
JHB
BJJ
JLW
JDH
SJC
JTG
WJC
Supreme Court of Louisiana
September 29, 2020
09/29/2020 "See News Release 035 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents."

*Retired Judge James Boddie, Jr., appointed Justice pro tempore, sitting for the vacancy in
Louisiana Supreme Court District 4.
09/29/20
S
UPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
No
. 20-KH-0197
S
TATE OF LOUISIANA
v.
ANDE
RSON CLARK
O
N SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE CRIMINAL
DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF ORLEANS
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.