State Of Louisiana v. Spencer W. Henry

Supreme Court of Louisiana
April 23, 2025
Chief Deputy Clerk of Court
For the Court
The Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana
STATE OF LOUISIANA
VS.
SPENCER W. HENRY
No. 2024-KH-01534
_ _
_ _ _ _
I
N RE: Spencer Will Henry - Applicant Defendant; Applying For Supervisory Writ,
Parish of Ascension, 23rd Judicial District Court Number(s) 7367, Court of Appeal,
First Circuit, Number(s) 2024 KW 0922;
_ _ _ _ _ _
April 23, 2025
Writ application denied. See per curiam.
Griffin, J., would grant in part. See State v. Reddick, 2021-01893 (La. 10/21/22)
351 So. 3d. 273. (Griffin, J. dissenting)
Guidry, J., would grant in part. See State v. Reddick, 2021-01893 (La. 10/21/22)
351 So. 3d. 273. (Griffin, J. dissenting)
CRC
JLW
WJC
JBM
04/23/2025 "See News Release 019 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents."

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
No. 24-KH-1534
STATE OF LOUISIANA
v.
SPENCER WILL HENRY
ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE TWENTY-THIRD
JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF ASCENSION
PER CURIAM:
Denied. Applicant does 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. 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; State ex rel. Glover v. State , 93-
2330 (La. 9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189.
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. Notably, the legislature in
2013 La. Acts 251 amended that article to make the procedural bars against
successive filings manda tory. Applicant’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

2

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.