No. 2014-KP-0401 Precedential Processed

State v. Alexander

Louisiana Supreme Court · Filed November 7, 2014 · 152 So. 3d 137

Cited by

State of Louisiana v. Vincent Jermaine Ford La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2023
State Of Louisiana v. Norman A. Sanders La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2023
State Of Louisiana v. George Tillman La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2020
State ex rel. Nicholas v. State 192 So. 3d 729 La. 2016
State v. Gibson 192 So. 3d 132 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
State v. Brown 176 So. 3d 761 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
State v. Mead 165 So. 3d 1044 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015

Authorities cited

Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.

State v. Parker 711 So. 2d 694
State v. Ducote 661 So. 2d 480
Smith v. Cajun Insulation, Inc. 392 So. 2d 398
State Ex Rel. Glover v. State 660 So. 2d 1189
State Ex Rel. Melinie v. State 665 So. 2d 1172
State v. Cotton 45 So. 3d 1030

Opinion text

PER CURIAM. |!Writ granted; relief denied. The lower courts erred to the extent that they construed relator’s pleading as a motion to correct an illegal sentence, which can be filed any time under La.C.Cr.P. art. 882, rather than an (untimely) application for post-conviction relief. See La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.3; State v. Parker, 98-0256, p. 1 (La.5/8/98), 711 So.2d 694, 695 (unless a pleading captioned as a motion to correct illegal sentence “point[s] to a claimed illegal term in [the petitioner’s] sentence,” it is not cognizable under La.C.Cr.P. art. 882); State ex rel. Stepter v. Whitley, 93-2346 (La.10/13/95), 661 So.2d 480 (“As to all of relator’s other claims, which do not relate to the legality of the sentence itself under the applicable statutes, relator’s application is denied because the court correctly treated these issues as forming the proper basis for an application for post-conviction relief ...”); cf. Smith v. Cajun Insulation, 392 So.2d 398 , 402 n. 2 (La.1980). Relator’s application, filed some 18 years after his conviction became final, is time-barred. See La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8; State ex rel. Glover v. State, 93-2330 (La.9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189 . | gFurthermore, this Court has construed the provisions of La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.3 and *138 determined that they “provide[] no basis for review of claims of excessiveness or other sentencing error post-conviction.” State ex rel. Melinie v. State, 93-1380 (La.1/12/96), 665 So.2d 1172 . “An habitual offender adjudication ... constitutes sentencing for purposes of Melinie and La. C.Cr.P. art. 930.3. which provides no vehicle for post-conviction consideration of claims arising out of habitual offender proceedings, as opposed to direct appeal of the conviction and sentence.” State v. Cotton, 09-2397 (La.10/15/10), 45 So.3d 1030 . Relator’s application is untimely and the claims raised therein are not cognizable on collateral review.