2024-KH-01550 Precedential Writ application denied. Processed

State Of Louisiana Ex Rel. v. Anderson Hawkins, Jr.

Louisiana Supreme Court · Filed February 19, 2025

Authorities cited

Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.

Opinion text

Supreme Court of Louisiana
February 19, 2025
Chief Deputy Clerk of Court
For the Court
The Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana
STATE OF LOUISIANA EX REL.
VS.
ANDERSON HAWKINS, JR.
No. 2024-KH-01550
_ _
_ _ _ _
I
N RE: Anderson Hawkins - Applicant Defendant; Applying For Supervisory Writ,
Parish of East Feliciana, 20th Judicial District Court Number(s) 6-92-807, Court of
Appeal, First Circuit, Number(s) 2024 KW 0915;
_ _ _ _ _ _
February 19, 2025
Writ application denied. See per curiam.
WJC
JLW
JTK
JBM
PDG
JMG
02/19/2025 "See News Release 006 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents."

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
No. 2024-KH-01550
STATE OF LOUISIANA EX REL.
VS.
ANDERSON HAWKINS, JR.
On Supervisory Writ to the 20th Judicial District Court, Parish of East 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;
State ex rel. Glover v. State, 93-2330 (La. 9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189.
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 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. N otably, the legislature in
2013 La. Acts 251 amended that article to make the procedural 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, 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.