State Ex Rel. Rice v. State
State Ex Rel. Rice v. State, 749 So. 2d 650 (La. 1999).
Cited by
- State of Louisiana Versus Jonathon Brown La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2024
- State of Louisiana Versus Jonathan Brown La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2024
- State ex rel. Schultz v. State 225 So. 3d 1055 La. 2017
- State ex rel. Preston v. State 193 So. 3d 128 La. 2016
- State ex rel. Harris v. State 193 So. 3d 133 La. 2016
- State ex rel. Arnaud v. State 188 So. 3d 1004 La. 2016
- State v. Falls 840 So. 2d 545 La. 2003
- State v. Marshall 841 So. 2d 866 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2003
- State v. Aleman 809 So. 2d 1056 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2002
- State v. Higginbotham 790 So. 2d 648 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2001
- Roy v. Cain 792 So. 2d 3 La. 2001
- State v. Hensley 781 So. 2d 834 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2001
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- Carlin v. Cain 706 So. 2d 968
Opinion text
749 So.2d 650 (1999) STATE ex rel. Kenneth W. RICE v. STATE of Louisiana. No. 99-KH-0496. Supreme Court of Louisiana. November 12, 1999. Writ denied. The district judge did not abuse his discretion, see generally Carlin v. Cain, 97-2390 (La.3/13/98), 706 So.2d 968 , in finding relator's failure to raise his claims in earlier applications for post-conviction relief inexcusable and in defaulting relator's most recent application for this reason. We also note that the required Uniform Application for Post Conviction relief, see La.C.Cr.P. art. 926(D); La. S.Ct.R. App'x A; U.R.C.A. App'x A, requires an inmate filing an application for post-conviction relief to "explain why" he may have "failed to raise [a particular] ground" in earlier proceedings. The Uniform Application thus in most cases both provides an inmate with an opportunity to explain his failure to raise a claim earlier and provides the district judge with enough information to undertake the informed exercise of his discretion and to determine whether default of an application under La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4(B), art. 930.4(C), or art. 930.4(E) is appropriate. Proper use of the Uniform Application thus satisfies the requirements of La. C.Cr.P. art. 930.4(F) without the need for further filings, formal proceedings, or a hearing. KIMBALL, J., not on panel.