State ex rel. Robinson v. State
State ex rel. Robinson v. State, 592 So. 2d 418 (La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991).
Cited by
- Brock v. CARONNA 8 So. 3d 22 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
- Doe v. Mires 741 So. 2d 842 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
- Doe v. Mires 741 So. 2d 842 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1999
- Stein v. Martin 709 So. 2d 1041 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1998
- State Ex Rel. Thompson v. State 699 So. 2d 74 La. 1997
- State ex rel. Thompson v. State 699 So. 2d 74 La. 1997
- Doe v. Doe 665 So. 2d 24 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
- Ballex v. Naccari 663 So. 2d 173 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1995
- Smith v. Perkins 648 So. 2d 482 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
- Fontaine v. Roman Catholic Church 625 So. 2d 548 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1993
- Shaw v. Bourn 615 So. 2d 466 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1993
- Dale v. Cappel 593 So. 2d 651 La. 1992
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- Duckett v. West Jefferson Medical Center 544 So. 2d 387
Opinion text
WRIT GRANTED: The trial court is ordered to reconsider relator’s application in light of La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4(F). Should the district court consider denying the application because of relator’s failure to include these claims in a prior application, the court must first comply with the directive of Article 930.4(D) and order relator to state reasons for the failure. See State v. Turner, 544 So.2d 387 (La.1989). See also McCleskey v. Zant, — U.S. -, 111 S.Ct. 1454 , 113 L.Ed.2d 517 (1991), for general standards to evaluate whether or not relator is procedurally barred from raising these claims. The court need not appoint counsel to assist relator in advancing his claim that the application is not repetitive. See Acts 1990, No. 523 (effective September 7, 1990).