State Ex Rel. Chris Barnes v. State Of Louisiana

Supreme Court of Louisiana
March 02, 2021
Clerk of Court
For the Court
The Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana
STATE EX REL. CHRIS BARNES
VS.
STATE OF LOUISIANA
No.2021-KH-00060
_ _
_ _ _ _
I
N RE: Chris Barnes - Applicant Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory Writ, Parish of
Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Number(s) 97- 666, Court of Appeal, Fifth
Circuit, Number(s) 20-KH-370;
_ _ _ _ _ _
March 02, 2021
Writ application denied. See per curiam.
JTG
JLW
JDH
SJC
WJC
JBM
PDG
03/02/2021 "See News Release 008 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents."

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
No. 21-KH-0060
STATE EX REL. CHRIS BARNES
v.
STATE OF LOUISIANA
ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE TWENTY-FOURTH
JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF JEFFERSON
PER CURIAM:
Denied. 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 his application for post -conviction relief in
state court. Similar to federal habeas relief, see 28 U.S.C. § 2244, Louisiana post -
conviction procedure envisi ons 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 art icle 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
03/02/21

2

show that one of the narrow exceptions authoriz ing 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.

03/02/21