State Of Louisiana v. Allen Anderson

Supreme Court of Louisiana
April 20, 2021
Chief Deputy Clerk of Court
For the Court
The Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana
STATE OF
LOUISIANA VS.
ALLEN ANDERSON
No.2021-KH-00024
_ _
_ _ _ _
I
N RE: Allen Anderson - Applicant Defendant; Applying For Supervisory Writ,
Parish of Orleans Criminal, Criminal District Court Number(s) 233-762;
_ _ _ _ _ _
April 20, 2021
Writ application denied. See per curiam.
JDH
JLW
SJC
JTG
WJC
JBM
PDG
04/20/2021 "See News Release 016 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents."

04/20/21
S
UPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
No
. 21-KH-0024
S
TATE OF LOUISIANA
v.
AL
LEN ANDERSON
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; 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;” rather, it “deals with pre -conviction complaints concerning
custody.”.
Applicant has now fully litigated several 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 seco nd 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,

2

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.