State Of Louisiana v. British Lamont James

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.
BRITISH LAMONT JAMES
No. 2021-KH-00321
_ _
_ _ _ _
I
N RE: British Lamont James - Applicant Defendant; Applying For Supervisory
Writ, Parish of Terrebonne, 32nd Judicial District Court Number(s) 503399, Court
of Appeal, First Circuit, Number(s) 2020 KW 1278;
_ _ _ _ _ _
May 04, 2021
Writ application denied. See per curiam.
W
eimer, C. J., recused.
WJC
JDH
SJC
JTG
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-0321
S
TATE OF LOUISIANA
v.
BR
ITISH LAMONT JAMES
O
N SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE THIRTY-SECOND
JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF TERREBONNE
PE
R CURIAM:
D
enied. Insofar as applicant’s petition seeks a writ of mandamus to the court
of appeal, the matter is moot. The court of appeal has acted. State v. James , 2020-
1278 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2/18/21) (unpub’d). As to applicant's substantive post-
conviction claims, 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.