State of Louisiana v. Craig Anderson, Jr.

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT
P.O. Box 16577
Lake Charles LA 70616
(337) 433-9403

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

Hon. Terry Wayne Lambright William R. Thornton
District Attorney, 30th JDC ADA 30TH JDC
P. O. Box 1188 P. O. Box 1188
Leesville LA 71496 Leesville LA 71496

Judgment on rehearing rendered
and mailed to all parties or counsel
of record on December 20, 2023

REHEARING ACTION: December 20, 2023

Docket Number: 23 00438-KW

STATE OF LOUISIANA
VERSUS
CRAIG ANDERSON, JR.

Writ Application from Vernon Parish Case No. 90,420 C

BEFORE JUDGES:

Hon. Candyce G. Perret
Hon. Jonathan W. Perry
Hon. Ledricka J. Thierry

As counsel of record in the captioned case, you are hereby notified that the ruling on

the application for rehearing filed by the State of Louisiana is:

APPLICATION FOR REHEARING GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED. See
Uniform Rules—Courts of Appeal, Rule 2-18.7. The State seeks rehearing based
upon arguments that Defendant’s second application for post-conviction relief and
the claims contained therein, which this court reviewed in State v. Anderson, 23-438
(La.App. 3 Cir. 10/6/23) (unpublished opinion), were repetitive, successive, and
untimely filed.

1

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT
P.O. Box 16577
Lake Charles LA 70616
(337) 433-9403

Defendant’s second application for post-conviction relief was not repetitive
under La.Code Crim.P. art. 930.4(A) because probation revocation is not an issue
that can be fully litigated in an appeal from the proceedings leading to judgment of
conviction and sentence. Defendant’s second application for post-conviction relief
was not repetitive under La.Code Crim.P. art. 930.4(B) because probation revocation
is not an issue that can be raised in the proceedings leading to conviction.
Defendant’s second application for post-conviction relief was not repetitive under
La.Code Crim.P. art. 930.4(C) because there is no appeal from probation
revocations. Thus, Defendant’s second application for post-conviction relief was
not repetitive.

Defendant’s second application for post-conviction relief was not deniable as
successive under La.Code Crim.P. art. 930.4(D) because it raised new or different
claims from those raised in the first petition. Defendant’s second application for
post-conviction relief was not deniable as successive under La.Code Crim.P. art.
930.4(E) because it was procedurally improper for the defense to argue probation
revocation claims in the first petition for post-conviction relief. Defendant filed his
first application for post-conviction relief with the trial court in August 2021, and
the trial court conducted the post-conviction relief hearing in September 2021, which
was prior to the ruling in State v. Broussard, 21-1470 (La. 1/12/22), 330 So.3d 306.
In Broussard, the supreme court judicially redefined “application for post conviction
relief” as established by the legislature La.Code Crim.P. art. 924 and judicially
altered the grounds for post-conviction relief set forth by the legislature in La.Code
Crim.P. art. 930.3, to include challenges to probation revocations. Broussard, 330
So.3d at 306. Thus, Defendant’s second application for post-conviction relief was
not successive.

Defendant’s second application for post-conviction relief also was not
deniable as untimely filed under La.Code Crim.P. art. 930.8. In addition to
expanding the scope of post-conviction relief, the Broussard court judicially altered
the La.Code Crim.P. art. 930.8 time limitation insofar as to allow challenges to
probation revocations up until two years from the date of revocation. Broussard,
330 So.3d at 306. As such, Defendant’s second application for post-conviction relief
was timely filed.

Therefore, the State’s claims that this court should have denied Defendant’s
writ application in KW23-438 based upon the second application being repetitive,
successive, and untimely filed are without merit. Accordingly, this court, having
granted review of the State’s application for rehearing, denies relief upon finding the
claims contained therein to be without merit.

cc: Jane Hogan, Counsel for the Applicant

2