State Of Louisiana v. Jon Wray Baumberger

Supreme Court of Louisiana
September 26, 2023
Chief Deputy Clerk of Court
For the Court
The Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana
STATE OF LOUISIANA
VS.
JON WRAY BAUMBERGER
No. 2022-KP-00045
_ _ _ _ _ _
IN RE: J
on Wray Baumberger - Applicant Defendant; Applying For Supervisory
Writ, Parish of Calcasieu, 14th Judicial District Court Number(s) 2519 -VC-11,
Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Number(s) KW 20-00151;
_ _ _ _ _ _
September 26, 2023
Writ application denied. See per curiam.
Genovese, J., would grant in part for the reasons assigned in State v. Reddick,
2021-01893 (La. 10/21/22) 351 So.3d. 273.
Crain, J., concurs.
Griffin, J., would grant. See State v. Reddick, 2021-01893 (La. 10/21/22) 351
So.3d. 273. (Griffin, J. dissenting).
JLW
JDH
SJC
JBM
09/26/2023 "See News Release 041 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents."

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
No. 2022-KP-00045
STATE OF LOUISIANA
VS.
JON WRAY BAUMBERGER
On Supervisory Writ to the 14th Judicial District Court, Parish of Calcasieu
PER CURIAM:
Denied. Applicant fails to show that the district court erred in resolving his
claim without conducting an evidentiary hearing and failed to carry his burden of
proof to his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel . See La.C.Cr.P. art. 929(A)
and 930.2; State ex rel. Tassin v. Whitley , 602 So.2d 721, 722 (La. 1992); see also
Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L .Ed.2d 674 (1984).
Additionally, Ramos v. Louisiana , 590 U.S. —, 140 S.Ct. 1390, 206 L.Ed.2d 583
(2020), does not apply retroactively to final convictions on state collateral review.
State v. Reddick, 2021-01893 (La. 10/21/22), 351 So.3d 273.
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. Nota bly, 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, unl ess 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.
09/26/23