State Of Louisiana v. Tyvon Turner

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. TYVON TURNER
No. 2021-KH-00352
_ _
_ _ _ _
I
N RE: Tyvon Turner - Applicant Defendant; Applying For Supervisory Writ, Parish
of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Number(s) 16- 26, Court of Appeal, Fifth
Circuit, Number(s) 21-KH-7;
_ _ _ _ _ _
May 04, 2021
Writ application denied. See per curiam.
PDG
JLW
JDH
SJC
JTG
WJC
JBM
05/04/2021 "See News Release 018 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents."

05/04/21
S
UPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
No
. 21-KH-0352
S
TATE OF LOUISIANA
v.
T
YVON TURNER
O
N SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE TWENTY-FOURTH
JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF JEFFERSON
PE
R CURIAM:
D
enied. Applicant does not identify 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 m andatory. 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, relator has exhausted his right to state collateral review. The
district court is ordered to record a minute entry consistent with this per curiam.