State Of Louisiana v. Douglas Robertson

Supreme Court of Louisiana
November 15, 2023
Chief Deputy Clerk of Court
For the Court
The Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana
STATE OF LOUISIANA
VS.
DOUGLAS ROBERTSON
No. 2023-KH-00817
_ _
_ _ _ _
I
N RE: Douglas Robertson - Applicant Defendant; Applying For Supervisory Writ,
Parish of West Feliciana, 20th Judicial District Court Number(s) 23-WCR -062,
Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Number(s) 2023 KW 0351;
_ _ _ _ _ _
November 15, 2023
Writ application denied. See per curiam.
Hu
ghes, J., recused.
SJC
JLW
JTG
WJC
JBM
PDG
11/15/2023 "See News Release 049 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents."

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
No. 23-KH-0817
STATE OF LOUISIANA
v.
DOUGLAS ROBERTSON
ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE TWENTIETH
JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF WEST FELICIANA
PER CURIAM:
Denied. 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 (distinguishing 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;” rathe r, 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 sec ond 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 proced ural 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,
11/15/23

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.