Keith Ezidore v. Timothy Hooper, Warden

Supreme Court of Louisiana
May 07, 2024
Chief Deputy Clerk of Court
For the Court
The Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana
KEITH EZIDORE
VS.
TIMOTHY HOOPER, WARDEN
No. 2023-KP-01312
_ _
_ _ _ _
IN
RE: Keith Ezidore - Applicant Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory Writ, Parish
of St. James, 23rd Judicial District Court Number(s) 1983-F, Court of Appeal, Fifth
Circuit, Number(s) 23-KH-363;
_ _ _ _ _ _
May 07, 2024
Writ application granted in part. See per curiam.
Crichton, J., dissents and would deny.
Crain, J., dissents and would deny.
McCallum, J., dissents and would deny.
JTG
JLW
JDH
PDG
05/07/2024 "See News Release 021 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents."

S
UPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
No.
2023-KP-01312
KEI
TH EZIDORE
VS.
TIMOTHY HOOPER, WARDEN
On S
upervisory Writ to the 23rd Judicial District Court, Parish of St. James
P
ER CURIAM:
Writ granted in part; otherwise denied. We find that the court of appeal
correctly determined that the district court erred in imposing procedural bars to
dismiss applicant’s post-conviction claims involving violations of Brady v.
Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 1196, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963). Ezidore v.
Hooper, 23-363 (La. App. 5 Cir. 8/30/23) (unpub’d). However, we also find that the
court of appeal erred in determining from the information available that post -
conviction applicant Keith Ezidore failed to show that any material suppression had
occurred. Accordingly, we grant the application in part to reverse that portion of the
court of appeal’s ruling, and we remand to the district court with instructions to
conduct an evidentiary hearing at which applicant will have the opportunity to carry
his burden post-conviction, La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.2, of showing the State suppressed
material evidence that was reasonably likely to have affected the judgment of the
jury. See generally Wearry v. Cain, 577 U.S. 385, 136 S.Ct. 1002, 194 L.Ed.2d 78
(2016); see also Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 92 S.Ct. 763, 31 L.Ed.2d 104
(1972) (clarifying that the rule stated in Brady applies to evidence undermining
witness credibility).
As for applicant’s recantation-based claim of factual innocence, we find that
applicant has failed to present evidence that is both new and sufficiently
05/07/24

2

corroborated in accordance with La.C.Cr.P. art. 926.2(B)(2), (B)(1)(a). Therefore,
applicant’s claim of factual innocence can properly be dismissed, see La.C.Cr.P.
arts. 929, 930, and the application here with regard to the claim of factual innocence
is denied.
REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED