State Of Louisiana v. Enoch James

Supreme Court of Louisiana
November 08, 2023
Chief Deputy Clerk of Court
For the Court
The Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana
STATE OF LOUISIANA
VS.
ENOCH JAMES
No. 2021-KH-01758
_ _
_ _ _ _
I
N RE: Enoch James - Applicant Defendant; Applying For Supervisory Writ, Parish
of Orleans Criminal, Criminal District Court Number(s) 541-109, Court of Appeal,
Fourth Circuit, Number(s) 2021-K-0391;
_ _ _ _ _ _
November 08, 2023
Writ application denied. See per curiam.
JLW
JDH
SJC
JTG
WJC
JBM
PDG
11/08/2023 "See News Release 048 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents."

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
No. 21-KH-1758
STATE OF LOUISIANA
v.
ENOCH JAMES
ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE CRIMINAL
DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF ORLEANS
PER CURIAM:
Denied. By pleading guilty unconditionally, applicant waived all non -
jurisdictional defects in the proceedings leading to his conviction. State v. Crosby,
338 So.2d 584, 586 (La. 1976). Applicant fails to satisfy his post -conviction
burden of proof of show ing the plea was unknowingly or unintelligently made.
La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.2. Applicant also fails to show that he received ineffective
assistance of counsel under the standard of Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S.
668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984) . As to his excessive sentence claim, it
is not cognizable on collateral review. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.3; State ex rel. Melinie v.
State, 93-1380 (La. 1/12/96), 665 So.2d 1172.
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. Notab ly, 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
11/08/23

2

accord with La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.6, and this denial is final. Hereafter, unle ss 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.