State Of Louisiana v. Samuel Ricardo Johnson

Supreme Court of Louisiana
January 25, 2023
Chief Deputy Clerk of Court
For the Court
The Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana
STATE OF LOUISIANA
VS.
SAMUEL RICARDO JOHNSON
No. 2022-KH-01177
_ _ _ _
_ _
IN R
E: Samuel Ricardo Johnson - Applicant Defendant; Applying For Supervisory
Writ, Parish of Ouachita, 4th Judicial District Court Number(s) 09-F12242, Court of
Appeal, Second Circuit, Number(s) 54,769-KH;
_ _ _ _ _ _
January 25, 2023
Writ application denied. See per curiam.
JDH
JLW
SJC
JTG
WJC
JBM
PDG
01/25/2023 "See News Release 003 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents."

S
UPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
No
. 22-KH-1177
S
TATE OF LOUISIANA
v.
S
AMUEL RICARDO JOHNSON
O
N SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE FOURTH
JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF OUACHITA
PE
R CURIAM:
D
enied. Construing applicant’s pleading as a bona fide motion for new trial,
in accordance with its caption, it is untimely and the district court did not err in
dismissing it. See La.C.Cr.P. art. 851(B)(3); La.C.Cr.P. art. 853(B). In the
alternative, construing the pleading as an applicati on for post-conviction relief, see
La.C.Cr.P. art. 924(1) (“An ‘application for post conviction relief’ means a petition
filed by a person in custody after sentence following conviction for the
commission of an offense seeking to have the conviction and sentence set aside.”),
it 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; State ex rel. Glover v. State ,
93-2330 (La. 9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189.
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 circumstanc es 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
01/25/23

2

successive filings mandatory. Applicant’s cla ims have now been fully litigated in
accord with La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.6, and this denial is final. Hereafter, 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.