State of Louisiana v. Sherman Hampton

STATE OF LOUISIANA * NO. 2022-K-0187

VERSUS *
COURT OF APPEAL
SHERMAN HAMPTON *
FOURTH CIRCUIT
*
STATE OF LOUISIANA
*******

APPLICATION FOR WRITS DIRECTED TO
CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT ORLEANS PARISH
NO. 519-042, SECTION “F”
Honorable Robin D. Pittman, Judge
******
Judge Paula A. Brown
******
(Court composed of Chief Judge Terri F. Love, Judge Sandra Cabrina Jenkins,
Judge Paula A. Brown)

Sherman Hampton #90147
Louisiana State Penitentiary
Main Prison/Pine-2
Angola, LA 70712

PRO-SE/RELATOR

Jason Rogers Williams
District Attorney
G. Benjamin Cohen
Chief of Appeals
Orleans Parish District Attorney’s Office
619 S. White St.
New Orleans, LA 70119

COUNSEL FOR STATE OF LOUISIANA/RESPONDENT

WRIT GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED
APRIL 6, 2022

PAB
TFL
SCJ

Relator, Sherman Hampton, seeks supervisory review of the district court’s

February 1, 2022 judgment, which denied his application for post-conviction relief.

For the reasons that follow, we grant relator’s writ application, but deny relief.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On February 14, 2019, a jury unanimously found Relator guilty on two

counts of first-degree rape. A non-unanimous jury convicted Relator of one count

of first-degree rape and one count of simple rape. On July 1, 2020, this Court

affirmed the unanimous jury convictions and vacated the convictions rendered by a

non-unanimous jury in accord with Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U.S. ___, 140 S.Ct.

1390, 206 L.Ed.2d 583 (2020). State v. Hampton, 19-0682 (La. App. 4 Cir.

7/1/20), 302 So.3d 544. The Supreme Court denied writs on December 22, 2020.

State v. Hampton, 20-01210 (La. 12/22/20), 307 So.3d 1045. On January 4, 2022,

Relator filed an application for post-conviction relief. The district court rendered

judgment, with accompanying reasons for judgment, on Relator’s application for

post-conviction relief on February 1, 2022. The district court first noted that

1

Relator’s application appeared untimely. However, out of an abundance of

caution, the district court considered Relator’s motion on the merits and found his

allegations to be meritless.

This writ application followed.

DISCUSSION

Relator argues that the district court erred on two grounds: (1) in finding that

Relator’s application for post-conviction relief was time barred pursuant to La.

C.Cr.P art. 930.8 and (2) in not finding that trial counsel was ineffective for his

failure to hire an expert to test the DNA results.

Timeliness

Relator argues that his application for post-conviction relief was timely filed

on December 22, 2021. In support of his claim, Relator attaches a copy of his

“Offender’s Request for Legal/Indigent Mail” dated December 22, 2021, which

indicated that his application for post-conviction relief and memorandum brief

were attached and mailed to the Clerk of Criminal District Court and the District

Attorney’s Office.

Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure Article 930.8 provides, in pertinent

part, that “[n]o application for post[-]conviction relief, including applications

which seek an out-of-time appeal, shall be considered if it is filed more than two

years after the judgment of conviction and sentence has become final under the

provisions of Article 914 or 922 . . . .” Pursuant to La. C.Cr.P. art. 922, “[i]f an

application for a writ of review is timely filed with the [S]upreme [C]ourt, the

2

judgment of the appellate court from which the writ of review is sought becomes

final when the [S]upreme [C]ourt denies the writ.”

In the case sub judice, Relator’s conviction became final when the Supreme

Court denied his writ application on December 20, 2020. On January 4, 2022, less

than two years after his conviction became final, Relator’s application for post-

conviction relief was filed in the district court. Accordingly, we find Relator’s

application for post-conviction relief was timely filed.

Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

Relator argues that the DNA evidence admitted during his trial was

contaminated by the floodwaters from Hurricane Katrina, and his counsel’s failure

to hire an expert to test the DNA was tantamount to ineffective assistance of

counsel. We disagree.

As set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in Strickland v. Washington, 466

U.S. 668 (1984), in order to grant post-conviction relief on the basis of ineffective

assistance of counsel, Relator must satisfy a two-pronged test: (1) that counsel’s

performance was deficient and (2) Relator was prejudiced by the deficiency. It is

well settled that general and conclusory allegations are insufficient to support a

claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. State ex rel. Byrd v. State, 16-0574, p. 4

(La. 8/4/17), 223 So.3d 1150, 1151 (where the Supreme Court, adopting the district

court’s written reasons for denying relief, found that “[g]eneral statements and

conclusory allegations will not suffice to prove a claim of ineffective assistance of

counsel.”); see also State v. Stallworth, 08-1389, p. 8 (La. App. 4 Cir. 4/29/09), 11

3

So. 3d 541, 546, writ denied, 09-1186 (La. 1/29/10), 25 So. 3d 829 (where this

Court found that the defendant’s “general assertion that his trial counsel was

unprepared is insufficient to satisfy the two-pronged Strickland test for establishing

ineffective assistance of counsel.”).

After review of the record, we agree with the district court that there is no

factual support for Relator’s claims that the DNA evidence was compromised by

the improper storage of evidence nor that his counsel was ineffective for failing to

challenge the evidence on that basis. Relator did not provide any specific facts or

evidence to prove that his counsel’s failure to hire an expert to test the DNA

evidence was deficient nor did he provide any evidence that he was prejudiced by

this omission.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, we grant Relator’s writ application and deny the

requested relief.

WRIT GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

4