State Of Louisiana v. Donald Ray Link

Supreme Court of Louisiana
May 30,
2024
Chief Deputy Clerk of Court
For the Court
The Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana
STATE OF LOUISIANA
VS.
DONALD RAY LINK
No. 2024-KD-00595
_ _ _ _ _ _
IN RE: S
tate of Louisiana - Applicant Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory Writ,
Parish of East Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Number(s) 12-72-2398;
_ _ _ _ _ _
May 30, 2024
Writ application granted. See per curiam.
Hughes, J., concurs in the result.
Crichton, J., additionally concurs and assigns reasons.
McCallum, J., additionally concurs for reasons assigned by Justice Crichton.
JTG
JLW
SJC
WJC
JBM
PDG
05/30/2024 "See News Release 027 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents."

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
No. 2024-KD-00595
STATE OF LOUISIANA
VS.
DONALD RAY LINK
On Supervisory Writ to the 19th Judicial District Court, Parish of East Baton
Rouge
PER CURIAM:
Writ granted. In response to a motion to clarify and/or modify sentence with
regard to parole eligibility, the district court sua sponte vacated a final conviction
for aggravated rape because it found that the jury instructions were fatally flawed at
the trial in 1973. The district court erred.
Citing La.C.Cr.P. art. 920 and State v. Goodley, 423 So.2d 648 (La. 1982), the
district court found that the jury instructions constituted an error patent. Code of
Criminal Procedure art. 920, pertaining to the scope of appellate review, provides
that a court of appeal on direct review shall consider “[a]n error that is discoverable
by a mere inspection of the pleadings and proceedings and without inspection of the
evidence.” This article does not establish any ground for post -conviction relief or
apply in the district court on collateral review. Similarly, the Goodley decision, a
case on direct review that considered the extent of the prohibition against double
jeopardy, does not apply here. Furthermore, the jury in the present case was correctly
instructed in accordance with former La.C.Cr.P. art. 817, as amended by Act 502 of
1972, effective August 1, 1972, that it could return a verdict of guilty of aggravated
rape without capital punishment . The fact that the trial court in 1973 did not fully
explain the operation of then La. R.S. 15:571.7, or anticipate its later repeal by 1979
05/30/2024

La. Acts, No. 490 , does not render the instructions erroneous or the responsive
verdict of guilty of aggravated rape without capital punishment that was returned by
the jury here a nullity. Cf. State ex rel. Turner v. Maggio, 463 So.2d 1304, 1306 (La.
1985).
Respondent’s motion to clarify and/or modify his sentence with regard to
parole eligibility did 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. Respondent’s application was not timely
filed in the district court, and he 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. In addition, his claim that he is entitled to parole eligibility after serving
10 years and six months is barred as repetitive. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4(D); State v.
Link, 83-0709 (La. 1/6/84), 443 So.2d 1114.
Accordingly, we grant the State’s application to reverse the district court’s
ruling, which vacated respondent’s conviction. We reinstate the conviction and
sentence, and w e deny respondent’s motion to clarify and/or modify his sentence.
The stay previously ordered by this court is hereby lifted.
Respondent 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. Respondent’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 application applies,

respondent has exhausted his right to state collateral review. The district court is
ordered to record a minute entry consistent with this per curiam.
REVERSED