State Of Louisiana v. Aquendius D. Landry

Supreme Court of Louisiana
March 02, 2021
Clerk of Court
For the Court
The Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana
STATE OF LOUISIANA
VS.
AQUENDIUS D. LANDRY
No.2020-KH-01480
_ _
_ _ _ _
I
N RE: Aquendius D. Landry - Applicant Defendant; Applying For Supervisory
Writ, Parish of Assumption, 23rd Judicial District Court Number(s) 06- 182, 1st
Circuit Court of Appeal, Number(s) 2020 KW 0811;
_ _ _ _ _ _
March 02, 2021
Writ application denied. See per curiam.
JDH
JLW
SJC
JTG
WJC
JBM
PDG
03/02/2021 "See News Release 008 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents."

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
No. 20-KH-1480
STATE OF LOUISIANA
v.
AQUENDIUS D. LANDRY
ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE TWENTY-THIRD
JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF ASCENSION
PER CURIAM:
Denied. T he 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 (disting uishing 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;” rather, it “de als with pre -conviction complaints concerning
custody.”).
Applicant has now fully litigated two applications for post -conviction relief
in state court. Similar to federal habeas relief, see 28 U.S.C. § 2244, Louisiana
post-conviction procedure envisions th e 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 t o 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,
03/02/21

2

unless he can show that one of the narrow exceptions authorizing th e 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.

03/02/21