No. 2018-KH-1006
Precedential
Processed
State v. Robertson
State v. Robertson, 271 So. 3d 190 (La. 2019).
Cited by
- Cy Williams Versus Mathew Alexander, III and Roussel Farms, Inc. La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2025
- Demetria Joseph v. Lowe's Home Centers, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2023
- Lynette Washington v. Minute Mart, Inc. D/B/A Breaux's Mart La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2022
- Shantell Jenkins, Individually And On Behalf Of Minor Child, Aston Jenkins v. Arbors On … La. 2022
- Helena Shear v. Trail Blazers, Inc., Et Al. La. 2021
- Cindy Planchard v. New Hotel Monteleone, Llc La. 2021
- Rocco LaTorre v. Lucas Cade Hunter, Enterprise Rent A Car and Mercury Indemnity Company … La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2021
- Frank Cushenberry and Robin Cushenberry, individually and on behalf of the minor children, Noah … La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2020
- Ruby Gatlin Bickham, Wilbur Hayes Bickham, James Hayes Bickham, Individually and on Behalf of … La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2020
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- State ex rel. Cormier v. State 731 So. 2d 274
Opinion text
PER CURIAM: Writ granted. The case is remanded to the district court for merits consideration. Applicant's claimed violation of Brady v. Maryland , 373 U.S. 83 , 83 S.Ct. 1194 , 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), overcomes the procedural bars of La.C.Cr.P. arts. 930.4(E) and 930.8(A) pursuant to the exception set out in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8(A)(1). See State ex rel. Cormier v. State , 98-2111 (La. 12/18/98), 731 So.2d 274 ("[T]he discovery of new evidence excepting a claim from the prescriptive period of La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8 would necessarily except a claim from the repetitiveness bars of La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4 ....").