State Of Louisiana v. Sherman Burton

Supreme Court of Louisiana
April 13, 2021
Chief Deputy Clerk of Court
For the Court
The Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana
STATE OF
LOUISIANA VS.
SHERMAN BURTON
No.2021-KH-00109
_ _
_ _ _ _
I
N RE: Sherman Burton - Applicant Defendant; Applying For Supervisory Writ,
Parish of Orleans Criminal, Criminal District Court Number(s) Section "L", 407-
530, Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Number(s) 2020-K-0484;
_ _ _ _ _ _
April 13, 2021
Writ application denied. See per curiam.
PDG
JLW
JDH
SJC
JTG
WJC
JBM
04/13/2021 "See News Release 015 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents."

04/13/21
S
UPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
No
. 21-KH-0109
S
TATE OF LOUISIANA
v.
S
HERMAN BURTON
O
N SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE CRIMINAL
DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF ORLEANS
PE
R CURIAM:
D
enied. Applicant does not id entify an illegal term in his sentence, and
therefore, his filing is properly construed as an application for post-conviction
relief. See State v. Parker , 98 -0256 (La. 5/8/98), 711 So.2d 694. As such, it is
subject to the time limitation set forth in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8. 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; State ex rel. Glover v. State , 93-
2330 (La. 9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189.
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
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.