State Of Louisiana v. Lisa Landry Johnson

Supreme Court of Louisiana
December 07, 2021
Chief Deputy Clerk of Court
For the Court
The Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana
STATE OF LOUISIANA
VS.
LISA LANDRY
JOHNSON
No. 2021-KP-01309
_ _
_ _ _ _
I
N RE: Lisa Landry Johnson - Applicant Defendant; Applying For Supervisory Writ,
Parish of Calcasieu, 14th Judicial District Court Number(s) 4985-05, Court of
Appeal, Third Circuit, Number(s) KH 19-00730;
_ _ _ _ _ _
December 07, 2021
Writ application denied. See per curiam.
Hughes, J., would grant.
JBM
JLW
SJC
JTG
WJC
PDG
12/07/2021 "See News Release 047 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents."

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
No. 21-KP-1309
STATE OF LOUISIANA
v.
LISA LANDRY JOHNSON
ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE FOURTEENTH
JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF CALCASIEU
PER CURIAM:
Denied. The application was not t imely filed in the district court, and
applicant fails to carry her 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. State v.
Curley, 16-1708 (La. 6/27/18), 250 So.3d 236, does not trigger an exception to the
time bar because it does not set out a “theretofore unknown interpretation of
constitutional law ... retroactively applicable to [applicant’s] case....” La.C.Cr.P.
art. 930.8(A)(2). Curley merely applied the existing p rinciples of Strickland v.
Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984) to the facts of
Curley’s case and determined that counsel rendered ineffective assistance of
counsel. See e.g. , State v. Jones , 2004 -0879, pp. 1 –2 (La. 11/15/04), 88 8 So.2d
766, 767.
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 appli cation
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
12/07/21

2

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.