State Of Louisiana v. Ryan Michael Pourciau

Supreme Court of Louisiana
February 24, 2023
Chief Deputy Clerk of Court
For the Court
The Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana
STATE OF LOUISIANA
VS.
RYAN
MICHAEL POURCIAU
No. 2020-KP-00811
_ _
_ _ _ _
I
N RE: Ryan Michael Pourciau - Applicant Defendant; Applying For Supervisory
Writ, Parish of Tangipahoa, 21st Judicial District Court Number(s) 1301894, 1st
Circuit Court of Appeal, Number(s) 2019 KW 1237;
_ _ _ _ _ _
February 24, 2023
Writ application denied. See per curiam.
Genovese, J., would grant in part for the reasons assigned in State v. Reddick, 2021-
01893 (La. 10/21/22) 351 So.3d. 273.
Griffin, J., would grant. See State v. Reddick, 2021-01893 (La. 10/21/22) 351 So.3d.
273. (
Griffin, J. dissenting).
JLW
JDH
SJC
WJC
JBM
02/24/2023 "See News Release 011 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents."

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
No. 20-KP-0811
STATE OF LOUISIANA
v.
RYAN MICHAEL POURCIAU
ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE TWENTY-FIRST
JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF TANGIPAHOA
PER CURIAM:
Denied. Applicant fails to s how 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). Applicant also fails to show that the state withheld
material exculpatory evidence in violation of Brady v. Maryland , 373 U.S. 83, 83
S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963). Applicant’s excessive sentence claim is not
cognizable on collateral review. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.3; State ex rel. Melinie v. State,
93-1380 (La. 1/12/96), 665 So.2d 1172. As to his remain ing claims, applicant fails
to satisfy his post-conviction burden of proof. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.2. See also State
v. Reddick, 2021-01893 (La. 10/21/22), 351 So.3d 273.
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
February 24, 2023
02/24/23

2

accord with La.C.Cr.P. art. 93 0.6, 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.