State v. McBroom

I,WRIT DENIED. Applicant, Rickey L. McBroom, seeks review of a judgment denying his application for post-conviction relief as untimely. In arguing that his application is timely, McBroom relies on the United States Supreme Court’s decisions in Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U.S. 1 , 132 S.Ct. 1309 , 182 L.Ed.2d 272 (2012), and Trevino v. Thaler, — U.S. —, 133 S.Ct. 1911 , 185 L.Ed.2d 1044 (2013). McBroom’s reliance on these cases is misplaced. Martinez held that “a procedural default will not bar a federal habeas court from hearing a substantial claim of ineffective assistance at trial if, in the initial-review collateral proceeding, there was no counsel or counsel in that proceeding was ineffective.” This Court is not a federal habeas court. Thus, Martinez has no application in this Court and does not lift the Louisiana procedural bar on untimely-filed post-conviction relief applications; it does not provide a “theretofore unknown interpretation of constitutional law” under La. C. Cr. P. art. 930.8(A)(2) that would give McBroom a right to proceed under Louisiana law despite filing outside the statutory time limitation for post-conviction relief. | -/ Trevino, supra, does . not expand the application of Martinez beyond federal habeas courts to Louisiana state courts. While Martinez arose under Arizona law which did not allow a defendant to raise an ineffective assistance claim on direct appeal, Trevino arose under Texas law which permitted such a claim to be raised on direct appeal. However, because the Trevino court found that the Texas procedural framework made it highly unlikely that a *60 defendant would have a meaningful opportunity to raise an ineffective assistance claim on direct appeal, the court applied the exception recognized in Martinez . Thus, Trevino expanded the application of the Martinez exception in federal habeas courts, but it did not create an exception under Louisiana law that would excuse the untimeliness of McBroom’s post-conviction relief application filed in a Louisiana state court. Accordingly, the instant application is untimely and is hereby denied.