State Of Louisiana v. Henry Lee Alfred

Supreme Court of Louisiana
February 24, 2023
Chief Deputy Clerk of Court
For the Court
The Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana
STATE OF LOUISIANA
VS.
HENRY LEE ALFRED
No. 2022-KH-01449
_ _
_ _ _ _
I
N RE: Henry Lee Alfred - Applicant Defendant; Applying For Supervisory Writ,
Parish of West Feliciana, 20th Judicial District Court Number(s) 9312, 10-016;
_ _ _ _ _ _
February 24, 2023
Writ application denied. See per curiam.
JTG
JLW
JDH
SJC
WJC
JBM
PDG
02/24/2023 "See News Release 011 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents."

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
No. 22-KH-1449
STATE OF LOUISIANA
v.
HENRY LEE ALFRED
ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE TWENTIETH
JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF WEST FELICIANA
PER CURIAM:
Denied. Ap plicant does not identify an illegal term in his sentence, and
therefore, his filing is properly construed as an application for post -conviction
relief. See State v. Parker , 98 -0256 (La. 5/8/98), 711 So.2d 694. As such, it is
subject to the time limitation set forth in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8. 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; 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 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, unless he can
show that one of the narrow exceptions authorizing the filing of a successive
February 24, 2023
02/24/23

2

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.