State Of Louisiana v. Brett Wayne Burnley
State Of Louisiana v. Brett Wayne Burnley, No. 2021-KH-00079 (La. May 4, 2021).
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- State v. Counterman 475 So. 2d 336
- State v. Crosby 338 So. 2d 584
Opinion text
Supreme Court of Louisiana
May 04, 2021
Chief Deputy Clerk of Court
For the Court
The Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana
STATE OF LOUISIANA
VS.
BRETT WAYNE BURNLEY
No. 2021-KH-00079
_ _
_ _ _ _
I
N RE: Brett Wayne Burnley - Applicant Defendant; Applying For Supervisory
Writ, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Number(s) 336,879, Court of
Appeal, Second Circuit, Number(s) 53,815-KH;
_ _ _ _ _ _
May 04, 2021
Writ application denied. See per curiam.
JLW
JDH
SJC
JTG
WJC
JBM
PDG
05/04/2021 "See News Release 018 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents."
05/04/21
S
UPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
No
. 21-KH-0079
S
TATE OF LOUISIANA
v.
BR
ETT WAYNE BURNLEY
O
N SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE FIRST
JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF CADDO
PE
R CURIAM:
D
enied. Applicant is not entitled to an out- of-time appeal. See State v.
Counterman, 475 So.2d 336 (La. 1985). By pleading guilty unconditionally, he
waived all non-jurisdictional defects in the proceedings leading to his conviction,
State v. Crosby , 338 So.2d 584, 586 (La. 1976), and applicant cannot appeal or
seek review of a sentence imposed in conformity with a plea agreement. La.C.Cr.P.
art. 881.2(A)(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. ar t. 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, unless he can
show that one of the narrow exceptions authorizing the filing of a successive
2
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.