No. 16-KH-0875
Precedential
Processed
State ex rel. Odom v. State
State ex rel. Odom v. State, 202 So. 3d 995 (La. 2016).
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- State v. Pierre 125 So. 3d 403
- State v. Conway 816 So. 2d 290
- State Ex Rel. Glover v. State 660 So. 2d 1189
Opinion text
CRICHTON, J., dissents and assigns reasons: Jjl respectfully dissent. I would deny Trivenskey Odom’s writ application as I do not believe that his claims, as presented, warrant an evidentiary hearing. La. C.Cr.P. Art. 930.2; see State v. Pierre, 13-0873 (La. 10/15/13), 125 So.3d 403 ; State v. Conway, 01-2808 (La. 4/12/02), 816 So.2d 290 . Odom’s remaining claims are untimely. La. C.Cr.P. Art. 930.8; State ex rel. Glover v. State, 93-2330 (La. 9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189 . Further, I would deem Odom’s claims fully litigated in these state collateral proceedings in accord with La. C.Cr.P. Art. 930.6 and thus final.