State Of Louisiana v. Porter Major, Jr.

Supreme Court of Louisiana
November 12, 2025
Chief Deputy Clerk of Court
For the Court
The Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana
STATE OF LOUISIANA
VS.
PORTER MAJOR, JR.
No. 2025-KH-00853
_ _
_ _ _ _
I
N RE: Porter Major - Applicant Defendant; Applying For Supervisory Writ, Parish
of East Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Number(s) 03 -17-0923, Court of
Appeal, First Circuit, Number(s) 2025 KW 0235;
_ _ _ _ _ _
November 12, 2025
Writ application denied. See per curiam.
JDH
JLW
WJC
JBM
PDG
CRC
11/12/2025 "See News Release 050 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents."

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
No. 25-KH-0853
STATE OF LOUISIANA
v.
PORTER MAJOR, JR.
ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE NINETEENTH
JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF EAST BATON ROUGE
PER CURIAM:
Denied. Applicant does not identify an illegal term in his sentences, 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

2

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.