No. 98-KH-2111 Precedential Processed

State ex rel. Cormier v. State

Louisiana Supreme Court · Filed December 18, 1998 · 731 So. 2d 274

Also decided on this docket: La., June 18, 1999 745 So. 2d 614

Cited by

State of Louisiana v. Jarvis Ballard La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2021
Cheri Hayden v. Frederick Boutte, Warden La. 2021
State v. Robertson 271 So. 3d 190 La. 2019
State v. Newton 263 So. 3d 421 La. 2019
State v. Campbell 778 So. 2d 636 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2001
State v. Hughes 765 So. 2d 423 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2000
State ex rel. Boudreaux v. State 750 So. 2d 977 La. 1999
State ex rel. Magee v. State 747 So. 2d 6 La. 1999

Authorities cited

Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.

State Ex Rel. Cormier v. State 680 So. 2d 1168
Carlin v. Cain 706 So. 2d 968
Crowley v. Crowley 666 So. 2d 652
State Ex Rel. Winn v. State 685 So. 2d 104

Opinion text

IN RE: Cormier, Gregory; — Plaintiffs); Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writ; Parish of Calcasieu 14th Judicial District Court Div. “E” Number 14578-82; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Numbers KW98-0331, KW97-0676. Writ granted in part; otherwise denied; case remanded to the district court. The district court did not comply with this Court’s earlier order, see State ex rel. Cormier v. State, 95-2208 (La.10/4/96), 680 So.2d 1168 , when it rejected six of relator’s claims because of his failure to seek exculpatory material more diligently. See also Carlin v. Cain, 97-2390 (La.3/13/98), 706 So.2d 968 ; State ex rel. Medford v. Whitley, 95-1187 (La.1/26/96), 666 So.2d 652 ; State ex rel. Winn v. State, 95-0898 (La.10/2/96), 685 So.2d 104 . We also note that the 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 and the district court thus abused its discretion in defaulting another of relator’s claims as repetitive. Accordingly, the case is remanded to the district court for prompt compliance as to all of relator’s claims with the directives and principles set out in Cormier supra, *275 and Cain, supra. In all other respects, the application is denied. JOHNSON, J. not on panel.