State of Louisiana Versus Eric Richardson

STATE OF LOUISIANA NO. 24-KH-541

VERSUS FIFTH CIRCUIT

ERIC RICHARDSON COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF LOUISIANA

December 06, 2024

Linda Wiseman
First Deputy Clerk

IN RE ERIC RICHARDSON

APPLYING FOR SUPERVISORY WRIT FROM THE TWENTY-FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT,
PARISH OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF LOUISIANA, DIRECTED TO THE HONORABLE
JUNE B. DARENSBURG, DIVISION "C", NUMBER 16-6969

Panel composed of Judges Susan M. Chehardy,
Stephen J. Windhorst, and Timothy S. Marcel

WRIT DENIED

Relator, Eric Richardson, seeks review of the trial court’s July 19, 2024
ruling denying his application for post-conviction relief (APCR). For the
following reasons, we deny relator’s writ application.

On April 18, 2018, after a bench trial, relator was found guilty of possession
of cocaine between twenty-eight and two hundred grams (count one), possession
with intent to distribute methamphetamine (count two), possession with intent to
distribute heroin (count three), possession of Tramadol (count four), and
possession of Diazepam (count five). On May 22, 2018, the trial court sentenced
relator to concurrent terms of fifteen years imprisonment at hard labor on each of
counts one and two, twenty years imprisonment at hard labor on count three, and
five years imprisonment at hard labor on each of counts four and five.

On the same date that the trial court imposed the sentences, the State filed a
multiple offender bill of information as to count three, alleging relator to be a
second-felony offender. Relator stipulated to his second offender status pursuant
to a plea agreement. The trial court then vacated its sentence on count three and
resentenced him to twenty-five years imprisonment at hard labor without benefit of
probation or suspension of sentence, to be served concurrently with the four
original counts. Relator’s convictions and sentences were affirmed by this Court
on September 4, 2019. State v. Richardson, 18-717 (La. App. 5 Cir. 9/4/19), 279
So.3d 501, writ denied, 19-1722 (La. 7/2/20), 297 So.3d 764.

24-KH-541 1

Relator filed a second or subsequent APCR with the district court on July
16, 2024. In it, relator made a claim of “actual innocence” based on the trial
court’s erroneous denial of his motion to suppress the evidence and counsel’s
ineffectiveness for failing to ensure that the trial court conducted a preliminary
examination. On July 19, 2024, the district court denied relief, first finding: “None
of the allegations point to errors that are newly discovered.” The district court
further found that relator’s APCR was procedurally barred and meritless on
grounds that it was repetitive and successive under La. C.Cr.P. art 930.4, failed to
provide proper specificity as required by La. C.Cr.P. art. 930.3, failed to meet the
burden of proof as mandated by La. C.Cr.P. art. 930.2, and was untimely under La.
C.Cr.P. art. 930.8.

In his writ application, relator contends that the district court erred in failing
to address the merits of his “actual innocence” claims. As an initial matter, to the
extent that relator argues that his claims warrant relief as a claim of actual
innocence, this Court has found “that the exclusive grounds to raise a factual/actual
innocence claim not based on DNA evidence is pursuant to La. C.Cr.P. art. 926.2.
State ex rel. Stevenson v. State, 22-KH-299 (La. App. 5 Cir. 7/29/22) (unpublished
writ disposition), writ denied, 22-1319 (La. 11/1/22), 349 So.3d 1. In the instant
application, relator makes no reference to La. C.Cr.P. art. 926.2 in making his
“actual innocence” claim. Further, based on the issues raised by relator, i.e.,
erroneous denial of his motion to suppress and ineffective assistance of counsel
which pertain to actual innocence, it does not appear he would meet the statute’s
requirements. We find the trial court did not err in finding that none of the
allegations in his APCR point to errors that are newly discovered.

Additionally, relator’s claim of “new facts” does not meet the exception for
newly discovered evidence under La. C.Cr.P. art. 930.8(A)(1). This article permits
a defendant to file an APCR more than two years after his conviction and sentence
become final where “[t]he application alleges, and the petitioner proves or the state
admits, that the facts upon which the claim is predicated were not known to the
petitioner or his prior attorneys.” In support of his APCR claim challenging his
arrest and search of his residence, relator presents the arrest report, the probable
cause affidavit from his case, and an excerpt of the transcript from the hearing on
his motion to suppress which challenged the search of his residence. With respect
to his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, he submits a copy of the trial
court’s order stating the preliminary examination was set for December 15, 2016.
Given that these documents were contained in his trial record, relator has not
shown how these documents qualify as newly discovered evidence. See La. C.Cr.P.
art. 930.2.

Moreover, on appeal, relator raised a pro se assignment of error arguing that
the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress evidence, which this Court
found was without merit. See Richardson, 279 So. 3d at 509–12.

In this writ application, relator has added nothing new to the argument that
has been previously deemed meritless by this Court. See La. C.Cr.P. art. 930.4(A).
As such, his instant claim challenging the trial court’s denial of his motion to
suppress is repetitive.

Consequently, we find that relator’s claims, lacking support as a claim of
factual/actual innocence, are untimely given that relator’s convictions and
sentences became final in 2020. See La. C.Cr.P. art. 930.8(A), which provides in

2
24-KH-541

pertinent part: “No application for post-conviction relief including applications
which seek an out-of-time appeal, shall be considered if it is filed more than two
years after the judgment of conviction and sentence has become final.”

Based on the foregoing, this writ application is denied.

Gretna, Louisiana, this 6th day of December, 2024.

TSM
SMC
SJW

3
24-KH-541

SUSAN M. CHEHARDY CURTIS B. PURSELL

CHIEF JUDGE CLERK OF COURT

SUSAN S. BUCHHOLZ
FREDERICKA H. WICKER
CHIEF DEPUTY CLERK
JUDE G. GRAVOIS
MARC E. JOHNSON
STEPHEN J. WINDHORST LINDA M. WISEMAN
JOHN J. MOLAISON, JR.
FIRST DEPUTY CLERK
SCOTT U. SCHLEGEL
TIMOTHY S. MARCEL FIFTH CIRCUIT
MELISSA C. LEDET
JUDGES 101 DERBIGNY STREET (70053)
DIRECTOR OF CENTRAL STAFF
POST OFFICE BOX 489
GRETNA, LOUISIANA 70054 (504) 376-1400

(504) 376-1498 FAX
www.fifthcircuit.org

NOTICE OF DISPOSITION CERTIFICATE OF DELIVERY
I CERTIFY THAT A COPY OF THE DISPOSITION IN THE FOREGOING MATTER HAS BEEN
TRANSMITTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH UNIFORM RULES - COURT OF APPEAL, RULE 4-6 THIS
DAY 12/06/2024 TO THE TRIAL JUDGE, THE TRIAL COURT CLERK OF COURT, AND AT LEAST ONE OF
THE COUNSEL OF RECORD FOR EACH PARTY, AND TO EACH PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY
COUNSEL, AS LISTED BELOW:

24-KH-541
E-NOTIFIED
24th Judicial District Court (Clerk)
Honorable June B. Darensburg (DISTRICT JUDGE)
Thomas J. Butler (Respondent)

MAILED
Eric Richardson #125418 (Relator)
Rayburn Correctional Center
27268 Highway 21
Angie, LA 70426