2021-KH-01513 Precedential Writ application denied. Processed

State Of Louisiana v. Toni Jo King

Louisiana Supreme Court · Filed December 21, 2021

Authorities cited

Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.

Opinion text

Supreme Court of Louisiana
December 21, 2021
Chief Deputy Clerk of Court
For the Court
The Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana
STATE OF LOUISIANA
VS.
TONI JO KING
No. 2021-KH-01513
_ _
_ _ _ _
I
N RE: Toni Jo King - Applicant Defendant; Applying For Supervisory Writ, Parish
of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Number(s) 575227-2, Court of Appeal,
First Circuit, Number(s) 2021 KW 0448;
_ _ _ _ _ _
December 21, 2021
Writ application denied. See per curiam.
PDG
JLW
JDH
SJC
JTG
WJC
JBM
12/21/2021 "See News Release 051 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents."

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
No. 21-KH-1513
STATE OF LOUISIANA
v.
TONI JO KING
ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE TWENTY-SECOND
JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF ST. TAMMANY
PER CURIAM:
Denied. By pleading guilty uncondi tionally, applicant waived all non -
jurisdictional defects in the proceedings leading to her conviction. State v. Crosby,
338 So.2d 584, 586 (La. 1976). Applicant also fails to show that she was denied
the effective assistance of counsel during plea negotia tions under the standard of
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).
Applicant has now fully litigated her 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 she can
show that one of the narrow exceptions authorizing the filing of a successive
application applies, applicant has exhausted her right to state collateral review. The
district court is ordered to record a minute entry consistent with this per curiam.
12/21/21