State Of Louisiana v. Andre Johnson

Supreme Court of Louisiana
March 18, 2025
Chief Deputy Clerk of Court
For the Court
The Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana
STATE OF LOUISIANA
VS.
ANDRE JOHNSON
No. 2024-KP-01175
_ _ _ _
_ _
IN RE
: Andre Johnson - Applicant Defendant; Applying For Supervisory Writ,
Parish of Ouachita, 4th Judicial District Court Number(s) 95-F- 1265, Court of
Appeal, Second Circuit, Number(s) 56,016-KW;
_ _ _ _ _ _
March 18, 2025
Writ application granted. See per curiam.
Crain, J., concurs and assigns reasons.
McCallum,
J., dissents.
Cole, J., concurs and assigns reasons.
PDG
JLW
JDH
JMG
03/18/2025 "See News Release 010 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents."

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
No. 24-KP-1175
STATE OF LOUISIANA
v.
ANDRE JOHNSON
ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE FOURTH
JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF OUACHITA
PER CURIAM:
Writ granted. In 1997, an Ouachita Parish jury found applicant guilty of
second degree murder. The court sentenced him to life imprisonment at hard labor
without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence. The court of appeal
affirmed. State v. Johnson , 97-30290 (La. App. 2 Cir. 1/21/98), 709 So.2d 1102
(table), writ denied , 98 -0481 (La. 6/26/98), 719 So.2d 1056. In February 2024,
applicant filed a counselled application for post -conviction relief into the district
court, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel at sentencing.
Applicant has adequately demonstrated that his application for post -
conviction relief overcomes the post-conviction procedural bars, as the state filed a
written notice into the district court on February 26, 2024, waiving any and all
procedural bars which may limit his application pursuant to La.C.Cr.P. arts.
930.4(G) (eff. until 8/1/24) and 930.8(D) (eff. until 8/1/24). The waiver was
express, in writing, and filed by the state into the district court record, as required
by those provisions.
While the legislature has since added a provision to those articles making the
procedural bars mandatory, see La.C.Cr.P. arts. 930.4(G) & 930.8(E), at the time

2

applicant filed his post -conviction application and the state filed its waiver, the
district court was free to consider the application on the merits. If a district court
was mandated to decline to consider every application for post -conviction relief
that was filed outside of the two -year time period mandated in La.C.Cr.P. art.
930.8, absent the exceptions listed in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8(A)(1) –(6), the
legislature would have had no reason or purpose to enact the provision that allowed
the state to waive the procedural bars. To say otherwise would mean the addition
of the provision to allow the state to affirmatively waive procedural bars was
effectively meaningless, and the legislature added an unnecessary provision to
La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8. See generally R.S. 14:3; State v. Palermo, 00-2488, p. 5 (La.
5/31/02), 818 So.2d 745, 749 (“In construing statutes, courts must endeavor to give
an interpretation that will give them effectiveness and purpose, rather than one
which makes them meaningless.”); Boudreaux v. La. DPSC , 12 -0239, p. 5 (La.
10/16/12), 101 So.3d 22, 26 (“Every word, sentence, or provision in a law is
presumed to be intended to serve some useful purpose, that some effect is given to
each such provision, and that no unnecessary words or provisions were
employed.”).
As we have previously observed, if a defendant seeks post -conviction relief
based on the finding of a legal defect pursuant to La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.3, a district
attorney is not required by this decision to oppose the application. “For example, if
a defendant claims his conviction was obtained in violation of the constitution,
pursuant to La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.3(1), because he was denied effective assistance of
counsel […], the district attorney may choose not to raise procedural objections
even when they apply.” State v. Lee , 22-1827, p. 10 (La. 9/1/23), 370 So.3d 408,
416.

3

Furthermore, after reviewing the application, we find the district court erred
in not conducting an evidentiary hearing. See generally La.C.Cr.P. art. 929(A)(“ If
the court determines that the factual and legal issues can be resolved based upon
the application and answer, and supporting documents, including relevant
transcripts, depositions, and other reliable documents submitted by either party or
available to the court, the court may grant or deny relief without further
proceedings.”); see also State ex rel. Tassin v. Whitley , 602 So.2d 721, 722 (La.
1992). Here, the factual and legal issues cannot be resolved based solely on the
available documents. Accordingly, we reverse the district court ruling that
summarily denied relief, and we remand with instructions to conduct an
evidentiary hearing on applicant’s ineffective assistance of counsel at sentencing
claim.