State Of Louisiana v. Walter Edward Johnson, Jr.

Supreme Court of Louisiana
December 08, 2020
Clerk of Court
For the Court
The Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana
STATE OF LOUISIANA
VS.
WALTER EDWARD JOHNSON, JR.
No.2020-KH-00886
_ _ _ _
_ _
IN R
E: Walter Edward Johnson, Jr. - Applicant Defendant; Applying For
Supervisory Writ, Parish of West Feliciana, 19th Judicial District Court Number(s)
20-WCR-137, 1st Circuit Court of Appeal, Number(s) 2020-KW-0280;
_ _ _ _ _ _
December 08, 2020
Writ application denied. See per curiam.
We
imer, J., recused.
JBM
BJJ
JDH
SJC
JTG
WJC
12/08/2020 “See News Release 047 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents.”

*Retired Judge James H. Boddie, Jr., heard this case as Justice pro tempore, sitting in the vacant
seat for District 4 of the Supreme Court. He is now appearing as an ad hoc for Justice Jay B.
McCallum.
12/08/20
S
UPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
No
. 20-KH-0886
S
TATE OF LOUISIANA
v.
W
ALTER EDWARD JOHNSON, JR.
O
N SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE NINETEENTH
JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF EAST BATON ROUGE
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; see State ex rel. Glover v. State , 93-2330, pp. 9-11 (La. 9/5/95), 660 So.2d
1189, 1195- 96 (distinguishing habeas corpus from post- conviction relief and
endorsing La.C.Cr.P. art. 351 and its cmt. (c), which states that “habeas corpus is
not the proper procedural device for petitioners who may file applications for post
conviction relief;” r ather, it “deals with pre -conviction complaints concerning
custody.”).
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 th at article to make the procedural bars against
successive filings mandatory. Applicant’s claims have now been fully litigated in

2

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 au thorizing 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.