State Of Louisiana v. Ronnie O. Dorsey, Sr.

Supreme Court of Louisiana
June 01, 2021
Chief Deputy Clerk of Court
For the Court
The Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana
STATE OF LOUISIANA
VS.
RONNIE O. DORSEY, SR.
No. 2021-KH-00432
_ _
_ _ _ _
I
N RE: Ronnie O. Dorsey, Sr. - Applicant Defendant; Applying For Supervisory
Writ, Parish of Ouachita, 4th Judicial District Court Number(s) 99-F-1214, Court of
Appeal, Second Circuit, Number(s) 53,930-KH;
_ _ _ _ _ _
June 01, 2021
Writ application denied. See per curiam.
PDG
JLW
JDH
SJC
JTG
WJC
JBM
06/01/2021 "See News Release 024 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents."

06/01/21
S
UPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
No
. 21-KH-0432
S
TATE OF LOUISIANA
v.
RO
NNIE O. DORSEY, SR.
O
N SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE FOURTH
JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF OUACHITA
PE
R CURIAM:
D
enied. 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 (distinguishi ng 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 w ith pre -conviction complaints concerning
custody.”).
Applicant has now fully litigated several applications 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,

2

unless he can show that one of the narrow exceptions authorizing 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.