State of Louisiana Versus Corey Miller

STATE OF LOUISIANA NO. 25-KH-315

VERSUS FIFTH CIRCUIT

COREY MILLER COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF LOUISIANA

August 09, 2025

Linda Tran
First Deputy Clerk

IN RE COREY MILLER

APPLYING FOR SUPERVISORY WRIT FROM THE TWENTY-FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT,
PARISH OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF LOUISIANA, DIRECTED TO THE HONORABLE STEPHEN D.
ENRIGHT, JR., DIVISION "N", NUMBER 02-404

Panel composed of Judges Jude G. Gravois,
Marc E. Johnson, and E. Adrian Adams, Pro Tempore

WRIT DENIED

Relator, Corey Miller, seeks supervisory review of the trial court’s June 25,

2025 ruling which denied his application for post-conviction relief (“APCR”) as

time-barred pursuant to La. C.Cr.P. art. 930.8(A), as well as successive pursuant to

La. C.Cr.P. art. 930.4. On the showing made, we find no abuse of the trial court’s

discretion, and thus deny the writ application.

ANALYSIS

La. C.Cr.P. art. 930.8 provides, in 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 under the provisions of Article 914 or 922,” unless one

of the exceptions set forth therein apply. Here, relator’s conviction and sentence

became final in 2013.1 On June 16, 2025, relator filed an APCR, through counsel,

with the district court. In it, relator claimed that the jury instructions placed an

undue burden on the defense “to prove beyond a reasonable doubt lesser-included

defenses.” Relator also argued that the trial court erred by remanding the jury to

re-deliberate without instructing them again on lesser included offenses and “not

guilty” as responsive verdicts, and by further failing to declare a mistrial after the

jury’s first verdict was declared invalid. In addition, relator claimed that counsel

rendered ineffective assistance by failing to object to the improper jury

instructions.

On June 25, 2025, the district court denied relief, stating: “[Relator] does not

provide or meet any of the exceptions for filing an untimely application, as

provided under La. C.Cr.P. art. 930.8(A). [Relator’s] APCR is untimely and thus

is procedurally barred from review at this time.” The district court also found that

relator’s APCR was successive pursuant to La. C.Cr.P. art. 930.4.2

On July 18, 2025, relator’s timely-filed counseled writ application was

stamped as filed with this Court. In it, relator re-urges his claims of improper jury

instructions and ineffective assistance of counsel.

The exceptions set out in La. C.Cr.P. art. 930.8(A)(1), (2), (3), and/or (4) are

inapplicable to relator’s case because his claims do not rest on newly discovered

1
See Miller v. Louisiana, 568 U.S. 1157, 133 S.Ct. 1238, 185 L.Ed.2d 177 (2013). In
prior proceedings, on August 11, 2009, a jury found relator guilty of second degree murder in
violation of La. R.S. 14:30.1. On August 14, 2009, the trial court sentenced relator to life
imprisonment at hard labor without the benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence.
On December 28, 2011, this Court affirmed relator’s conviction and sentence. State v. Miller,
10-718 (La. App. 5 Cir. 12/28/11), 83 So.3d 178. The Louisiana Supreme Court denied relator’s
writ application on May 18, 2012. State v. Miller, 12-282 (La. 5/18/12), 89 So.3d 1191. The
United States Supreme Court denied certiorari on February 19, 2013. Miller v. Louisiana, 568
U.S. 1157, 133 S.Ct. 1238, 185 L.Ed.2d 177 (2013).
2
La. C.Cr.P. art. 930.4(D) provides: “A successive application may be dismissed if it
fails to raise a new or different claim.” La. C.Cr.P. art. 930.4(E) provides: “A successive
application shall be dismissed if it raises a new or different claim that was inexcusably omitted
from a prior application.” In finding relator’s APCR was successive, the district court did not
state a specific provision applied to relator’s claims. This Court notes that relator had a full
appeal, as noted in footnote 1.

evidence or an unknown interpretation of constitutional law, his application was

filed after October 1, 2001, and he was not sentenced to death.3 In the instant

application, relator states that his claims fall under the “facts not known” exception

of La. C.Cr.P. art. 930.8(A)(1), which allows a defendant to file an APCR more

than two years after his conviction and sentence has 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.” However, relator offers no support as to how this exception applies to

his claim of erroneous jury instructions and counsel’s failure to object to them, as

these claims are based upon his own trial proceedings. Accordingly, the district

court did not err in finding relator’s claims are time-barred.4

Additionally, on appeal, relator raised his claim regarding the trial court’s

failure to declare a mistrial after the jury’s first verdict was declared invalid. This

Court found no abuse of discretion on the trial court’s part, stating: “[T]he record

does not show that a mistrial under La. C.Cr.P. art. 775(2) was warranted, because

the jury could not agree on a verdict or because prejudicial conduct made it

impossible for defendant to obtain a fair trial.” See Miller, 10-718, 83 So.3d at

202-03. Consequently, because relator’s claim was fully litigated on appeal, and

relator fails to make a showing that the interest of justice requires it to be

reconsidered now, this claim is also precluded from post-conviction review under

La. C.Cr.P. art. 930.4(A).5

3
See La. C.Cr.P. art. 930.8(A).
4
In any event, given that relator does not include a copy of the complained-of jury
instructions in his application or even point to the specific wording he now claims was
objectionable, it does not appear he would meet his post-conviction burden of proof. La. C.Cr.P.
art. 930.2 provides: “The petitioner in an application for post-conviction relief shall have the
burden of proving that relief should be granted.”
5
La. C.Cr.P. art. 930.4(A) provides: “Unless required in the interest of justice, any claim
for relief which was fully litigated in an appeal from the proceedings leading to the judgment of
conviction and sentence shall not be considered.”

Relator also complains that the district court did not order the State to file a

response. Additionally, relator faults the district court for not conducting an

evidentiary hearing.

La. C.Cr.P. art. 927(A) permits the State to file an answer to a relator’s

APCR. The Official Revision Comment to La. C.Cr.P. art. 927 provides, in part:

“An answer is required only when a claim upon which relief could be granted has

been stated.” Given that relator’s APCR was denied outright by the district court,

it does not appear an answer from the State was warranted, which in any case,

would be to “afford the State an opportunity to be heard.” See State v. Terry, 458

So.2d 97, 101 (La. 1984). Furthermore, the district court may dispose of the

petition for relief summarily if 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. La. C.Cr.P. art. 929(A). In light of the untimeliness of the

claims raised by relator as discussed above, the district court acted within its

discretion when it resolved relator’s claims without conducting an evidentiary

hearing. See State ex rel. Tassin v. Whitley, 602 So.2d 721, 722 (La. 1992).

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, we find no error in the ruling of the district court.

Accordingly, on the showing made, the writ application is denied.

Gretna, Louisiana, this 9th day of August, 2025.

JGG
MEJ
EAA

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. TRAN
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 08/09/2025 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:

25-KH-315
E-NOTIFIED
24th Judicial District Court (Clerk)
Honorable Stephen D. Enright, Jr. (DISTRICT JUDGE)
Thomas J. Butler (Respondent) Ernest L. Johnson (Relator)

MAILED
Honorable Paul D. Connick, Jr.
(Respondent)
District Attorney
Twenty-Fourth Judicial District
200 Derbigny Street
Gretna, LA 70053