State Of Louisiana v. Larry Mckithern

Supreme Court of Louisiana
April 27, 2021
Chief Deputy Clerk of Court
For the Court
The Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana
STATE OF LOUISIANA
VS.
LARRY MCKITHERN
No. 2020-KH-00904
_ _
_ _ _ _
I
N RE: Larry McKithern - Applicant Defendant; Larry McKithern - Applicant
Defendant; Applying for Reconsideration, Parish of Calcasieu, 14th Judicial District
Court Number(s) 25391 -09, Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Number(s) KH 19-
00030;
_ _ _ _ _ _
April 27, 2021
Application for reconsideration granted. Writ application denied. See per curiam.
G
enovese, J., recused.
WJC
JLW
JDH
SJC
JBM
PDG
04/27/2021 "See News Release 017 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents."

* Genovese, Justice, recused
04/27/21
S
UPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
No
. 20-KH-0904
S
TATE OF LOUISIANA
v.
L
ARRY McKITHERN
O
N SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE FOURTEENTH
JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF CALCASIEU
PE
R CURIAM:*
R
econsideration granted; writ denied. Applicant fails to show that he
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). A portion of
the application is repetitive. La.C.Cr.P. a rt. 930.4. As to his remaining claims,
applicant fails to satisfy his post-conviction burden of proof. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.2.
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. N otably, 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.