State of Louisiana Versus Rodrick Barnes

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal
State of Louisiana

No. 26-KH-407

STATE OF LOUISIANA

versus

RODRICK BARNES

IN RE RODRICK BARNES
APPLYING FOR SUPERVISORY WRIT FROM THE TWENTY-FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
COURT, PARISH OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF LOUISIANA, DIRECTED TO THE HONORABLE
STEPHEN C. GREFER, DIVISION "J", No. 21-3200

September 23, 2026

Panel composed of Judges Fredericka Homberg Wicker,
Jude G. Gravois, and Stephen J. Windhorst

WRIT DENIED

Relator, Roderick Barnes, seeks to invoke our supervisory jurisdiction to
review the July 10, 2024 judgment of the 24th Judicial District Court, denying his
Application for Post-Conviction Relief (“APCR”). For the reasons stated below,
the writ is denied.

Relator’s filing in this Court consists only of his Memorandum of Law in
Support of Post-Conviction Relief Under Act 10, New Law in the Interest of
Justice, with attachments thereto, and the judgment of the district court. Although
it was stamped as filed in this Court on August 31, 2026, the pleading was
postmarked August 24, 2026. Pleadings filed by pro se prisoners are deemed filed
when they are turned over to prison authorities to be mailed. Houston v. Lack, 487
U.S. 266, 108 S.Ct. 2379, 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988). There is no indication on
either the document or in any attachment thereto specifying when Relator placed
the document with prison authorities for mailing.

Additionally, Relator did not provide us with any evidence that he filed a
Notice of Intention to seek supervisory review in the trial court as required by the
Uniform Rules of the Louisiana Courts of Appeal (“Uniform Rules”), Rule 4-2.
Nor did he provide us with any documentation of the return date for the writ

26-KH-407

application as mandated by Uniform Rule 4-3, which states that the application for
writs “shall contain documentation of the return date . . . any application that does
not contain this documentation may not be considered by the appellate court.”
(Emphasis added). Uniform Rule 4-3 also provides that in criminal cases, the
return date “shall not exceed 30 days from the date the ruling is signed.” Here, the
ruling was signed on July 10, 2024. Thirty days from that date is August 9, 2024.
Thus, it appears that Relator’s writ application is untimely.

The application also fails to comply with Uniform Rule 4-5. It does not
contain a copy of the indictment or bill of information; a copy of the State’s
opposition filed in the district court; a copy of the pertinent court minutes; or the
notice of intent and return date order. See Uniform Rule 4-5(8)-(11).

Even if we were to consider Relator’s application despite these deficiencies,
we would deny it on the merits. Relator raised three claims of error. First, he
claims that his trial counsel was ineffective for: (1) failing to interview
eyewitnesses witnesses who were present at the scene; (2) failing to object or file a
motion for a mistrial following the polling of the jury; and (3) pursuing a claim of
self-defense, a strategy which Relator did not authorize and expressly informed his
counsel not to pursue. Second, Relator asserts prosecutorial misconduct as a basis
for overturning his conviction and sentence. Finally, Relator contends that his
sentence was improperly enhanced and that, as a result, it is excessive and illegal.
The district court found that all of these claims lack merit.

We agree with the district court that, as to his claims of ineffective
assistance of counsel, Relator failed to meet his burden of proving that: (1) the
performance of his counsel fell below an objective standard of reasonableness
under prevailing professional norms, and (2) counsel’s inadequate performance
prejudiced him to the extent that the trial was rendered unfair and the verdict
suspect. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674
(1984); State v. Washington, 491 So.2d 1337 (La. 1986); State v. Legrand, 02-1462
(La. 12/3/03), 864 So.2d 89. We also agree with the district court that Relator did
not state a colorable claim that his conviction was obtained through prosecutorial
misconduct. On these points, we adopt all of the reasons stated by the district court
in its well-reasoned opinion. Relator’s claim that his sentence was improperly
enhanced was raised and denied in his direct appeal to this Court. State v. Barnes,
24-303 (La. App. 5 Cir. 5/28/25), 415 So.3d 519, 530, writ denied, 25-839 (La.
11/19/25), 420 So.3d 1183. As a result, this claim, as found by the district court, is
jurisdictionally barred from review in an APCR under La. C.Cr.P. art. 930.4(A).

Accordingly, for all of the reasons stated herein, we deny Relator’s writ
application.

Gretna, Louisiana, this 23rd day of September, 2026.

FHW
JGG
SJW

2

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 09/23/2026 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:

26-KH-407
E-NOTIFIED
24th Judicial District Court (Clerk)
Honorable Stephen C. Grefer (DISTRICT JUDGE)
Darren A. Allemand (Respondent)

MAILED
Rodrick Barnes #591881 (Relator)
Raymond Laborde Correctional Center
1630 Prison Road
Cottonport, LA 71327