State Of Louisiana v. J Oseph Cammatte

Supreme Court of Louisiana
November 16, 2022
Chief Deputy Clerk of Court
For the Court
The Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana
STATE OF LOUISIANA
VS.
J
OSEPH CAMMATTE
No. 2022-KH-01018
_ _
_ _ _ _
IN
RE: Joseph Cammatte - Applicant Defendant; Applying For Supervisory Writ,
Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Number(s) 08- 5790, Court of
Appeal, Fifth Circuit, Number(s) 22-KH-188;
_ _ _ _ _ _
November 16, 2022
Writ application denied. See per curiam.
JLW
JDH
SJC
JTG
WJC
JBM
PDG
11/16/2022 "See News Release 050 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents."

S
UPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
No
. 22-KH-1018
S
TATE OF LOUISIANA
v.
J
OSEPH CAMMATTE
O
N SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE TWENTY-FOURTH
JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF JEFFERSON
PE
R CURIAM:
D
enied. 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 (distinguis hing 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 several 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,
11/16/22

2

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 ordered to record a minute entry consistent with this
per curiam.