State of Louisiana Versus Drew Pizzo

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal
State of Louisiana

No. 26-KH-422

STATE OF LOUISIANA

versus

DREW PIZZO

IN RE DREW PIZZO
APPLYING FOR SUPERVISORY WRIT FROM THE TWENTY-FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
COURT, PARISH OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF LOUISIANA, DIRECTED TO THE HONORABLE
FRANK A. BRINDISI, DIVISION "E", No. 88-876

October 07, 2026

Panel composed of Judges Susan M. Chehardy,
Scott U. Schlegel, and Timothy S. Marcel

WRIT DENIED

Relator, Drew Pizzo, seeks review of the district court’s July 29,

2026 ruling denying his application for post-conviction relief (APCR).

For the following reasons, the writ application is denied.

On June 21, 1990, a jury found relator guilty of second degree

murder, in violation of La. R.S. 14:30.1. On July 16, 1990, the trial

court sentenced relator to life imprisonment at hard labor without

benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence. Relator’s

conviction and sentence were affirmed by this Court on February 14,

26-KH-422 1

1991, and on May 2, 1991, the Louisiana Supreme Court dismissed

relator’s appeal without prejudice at his request.

On July 17, 2026, relator filed an APCR invoking the “facts not

known” exception of La. C.Cr.P. art. 930.8(A)(1), claiming that he had

recently discovered, through polling slips, that only eleven jurors served

on his jury. On July 29, 2026, the district court denied relief, finding

that “[t]he record is very clear that there were twelve jurors who

decided the case,” and that relator “fails to meet his burden of proof on

the merits of this claim,” and that he “fails entirely to prove any basis to

escape numerous procedural bars under La. C.Cr.P. art. 930.4 and

930.8.” On September 8, 2026, relator filed the instant application, re-

urging the same claim.

On review, we agree with the district court that relator’s APCR is

procedurally barred under La. C.Cr.P. art. 930.8. It provides, in

pertinent part, that “[n]o 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 enumerated exceptions applies. Because relator’s

conviction and sentence became final in 1991, his application, filed some

thirty-five years later, is untimely.

Relator argues that the exception in La. C.Cr.P. art. 930.8(A)(1)

applies here. That exception permits consideration of an otherwise

untimely application where “[t]he application alleges, and the petitioner

proves or the state admits, that the facts upon which the claim is

2
26-KH-422

predicated were not known to the petitioner or his prior attorneys,”

provided that the petitioner also proves that “he exercised diligence in

attempting to discover any post conviction claims that may exist” and

submits the new facts “to the court within two years of discovery.”

We agree with the district court that relator has not satisfied this

exception. Relator’s claim rests on a recent “discovery” — jury polling

slips he obtained from the Jefferson Parish Clerk of Court on August 6,

2025, which he contends show that only eleven jurors served on his

jury.1 He asserts this newly discovered fact triggers the exception.

However, we disagree. The record shows that relator was present

throughout his trial, thus, the number of jurors who served on his jury

would have been obvious and known to him at that time. Because the

asserted fact was known or reasonably knowable to relator at trial, it is

not “newly discovered” within the meaning of La. C.Cr.P. art.

930.8(A)(1). Regardless, a defendant’s late realization that an error

may have occurred at trial does not qualify as the discovery of a new

fact for the purposes of Article 930.8(A)’s exception. See State v. Parker,

98-256 (La. 5/8/98), 711 So.2d 694, 695 (per curiam); Achelles v. Hooper,

22-177 (La. App. 5 Cir. 5/17/22)(unpublished writ disposition) , writ

denied, 22-1025 (La. 11/16/22), 349 So.3d 1003.

Because no exception applies, relator’s application is time-barred.

La. C.Cr.P. art. 930.8(F) clearly provides that “[a]ll of the limitations set

forth in this Article shall be jurisdictional and shall not be waived or

1
To the extent that relator’s claim could be read as a challenge to jury unanimity, in State v. Reddick, 21-
1893 (La. 10/21/22), 351 So.3d 273, 283, the Louisiana Supreme Court held that “the new rule of criminal
procedure announced in Ramos that requires unanimity in jury verdicts is not retroactive on state collateral review in
Louisiana.” Thus, even if relator raised a Ramos claim, his conviction became final decades before Ramos was
decided.
3
26-KH-422

excused by the court or the district attorney.” Accordingly, this Court is

without authority to consider this APCR.

Based on the foregoing, relator’s writ application is denied.

Gretna, Louisiana, this 7th day of October, 2026.

TSM
SMC
SUS

4
26-KH-422

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 10/07/2026 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-422
E-NOTIFIED
24th Judicial District Court (Clerk)
Honorable Frank A. Brindisi (DISTRICT JUDGE)
Darren A. Allemand (Respondent)

MAILED
Drew Pizzo #131376 (Relator)
Rayburn Correctional Center
27268 Highway 21
Angie, LA 70426