State ex rel. Olivier v. State
State ex rel. Olivier v. State, 182 So. 3d 939 (La. 2015).
Cited by
- Plant-N-Power Services, Inc. v. JRE Field Services, LLC Tex David Simoneaux, Jr., JRE Industrial … La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2023
- Thomas Bradford Terral v. AG Resource Holdings, LLC, AG Resource Management, LLC and Agrifund, … La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2022
- Succession of Evlyn Northington Farris Angus La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2022
- Allstate Vehicle and Property Insurance Company v. Andrus Restoration LLC d/b/a Servpro of Greater … La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2020
- Bannister Props., Inc. v. State 265 So. 3d 778 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
- Security Plan Fire Insurance Co. v. Donelon 220 So. 3d 769 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- State Ex Rel. Glover v. State 660 So. 2d 1189
Opinion text
PER CURIAM. | j Denied. The application was not timely filed in the district court, and relator has failed to carry his burden to show that an exception applies. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8; State ex rel. Glover v. State, 93-2330 (La.9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189 . Relator has now fully litigated his application for post-conviction relief in state court. Similar to federal habeas relief, see 28 U.S.C. § 2244 , Louisiana post-conviction procedure envisions the filing of a second or successive application only under the narrow circumstances provided in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4 and within the limitations period as set out in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8. Notably, the Legislature in 2013 La. Acts 251 amended that article to make the procedural bars against successive filings mandatory. Relator’s claims have now been fully litigated in accord with La,C.Cr.P. art. 930.6, and this denial is final. Hereafter, unless he can show that one of the narrow exceptions authorizing the filing of a successive application applies, relator has exhausted his right to state collateral review. The District Court is ordered to record a minute entry consistent with this per curiam.