Daniel E. August v. Darrel Vannoy, Et Al.

Supreme Court of Louisiana
June 08, 2021
Second Deputy Clerk of Court
For the Court
The Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana
DANIEL E. AUGUST
VS.
DARREL VANNOY, ET AL.
No.2021-KH-00515
_ _
_ _ _ _
I
N RE: Daniel E. August - Applicant Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory Writ,
Parish of West Feliciana, 20th Judicial District Court Number(s) 17-WCR -693,
Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Number(s) 2019 CW 1108;
_ _ _ _ _ _
June 08, 2021
Writ application denied. See per curiam.
JBM
JLW
JDH
SJC
JTG
WJC
PDG
06/08/2021 "See News Release 025 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents."

06/08/21
SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
No. 2021-KH-00515
DANIEL E. AUGUST
VERSUS
DARREL VANOY, ET AL
ON SUPERVISORY WRIT TO THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
COURT, PARISH OF WEST FELICIANA
PER CURIAM
Denied. 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 (distinguishing 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 with pre-conviction complaints concerning custody.”).
Applicant has now fully litigated three 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, 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
o
rdered to record a minute entry consistent with this per curiam.