State of Louisiana v. Eric Matthews

STATE OF LOUISIANA * NO. 2024-K-0285

VERSUS * COURT OF APPEAL

ERIC MATTHEWS * FOURTH CIRCUIT

* STATE OF LOUISIANA

*

*
*******

PAB

BROWN, J., CONCURS IN PART, DISSENTS IN PART AND ASSIGNS
REASONS

I respectfully concur in part and dissent in part from the majority’s opinion.

I agree with the majority that the State waived procedural objections to timeliness

of the Defendant’s post-conviction relief (“PCR”) application filed on March 14,

2023. However, I disagree with the majority that the March waiver did not

prospectively waive the timeliness and procedural bars related to Defendant’s

Unopposed Motion to Supplement Eric Matthews’ Application for Post-Conviction

Relief filed on November 29, 2023. The majority refers to the November 29, 2023

pleading as a new PCR application, but it is clear both in its caption and its content

that the motion is intended as a supplement to the March 14, 2023 PCR. The

motion itself unequivocally states that it is adding new claims to the March PCR—

and the State chose not to oppose. Therefore, I find that the November motion to

supplement relates back to the March PCR application. Further, I find that

Defendant was not limited in simply supplementing the initial claims made in the

March PCR application because it is within the discretion of the district court to

determine whether a PCR may be supplemented or amended. See State ex rel.

Duhon v. Whitley, 642 So.2d 1273 (La. 1994); see also State ex rel. Ronald Sims v.

State, 16-0540 (La. 8/4/17), 224 So.3d 355 (wherein the court found that when

considering a post-conviction relief application, the “district court retains

discretion to allow petitioner to supplement or amend claims before it has issued a

ruling on them”).