State v. Richoux

PER CURIAM. | denied. Relator fails to show he received ineffective assistance of counsel under the standard of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). We attach hereto and make a part hereof the District Court’s written reasons denying relator’s application. 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. | ¡ATTACHMENT *1027 [[Image here]] *1028 -k [[Image here]]