STATE EX REL ANTOINE TATE v. TIM HOOPER WARDEN LOUISIANA STATE PENITENTIARY ANGOLA LOUISIANA (2024)

Writ application granted in part. See per curiam.

Crichton, J., additionally concurs and assigns reasons.

04/23/24

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA

No. 2023-KP-01409

STATE EX REL. ANTOINE TATE

VS.

TIM HOOPER, WARDEN, LOUISIANA STATE PENITENTIARY, ANGOLA, LOUISIANA

On Supervisory Writ to the 19th Judicial District Court, Parish of East Baton Rouge

PER CURIAM:

Writ granted in part, otherwise denied. The district court's decision to deny the motion to substitute expert counsel (filed after an unexpected change in the status of the prior expert's state licensure) involved an abuse of discretion in that it unfairly penalized Mr. Tate for unforeseen events beyond his control and would have directly hindered his ability to litigate any claim for relief pursuant to Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304, 122 S. Ct. 2242, 153 L. Ed. 2d 335 (2002). The ruling denying the motion to substitute the expert is hereby reversed. The defense is hereby ordered to submit to the district court any outstanding expert report(s) within 45 days of this decision.

The district court also erred to the extent that it made any finding of contempt and imposed any penalties for contempt outside the limits of the criminal code. See La.C.Cr.P. arts. 24 and 25. The monetary penalty imposed is hereby vacated and the matter is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this decision. In all other respects, the writ is denied.

I write separately to express concern about the delay in the post-conviction litigation in this case. An East Baton Rouge Parish jury convicted defendant and sentenced him to death. State v. Tate, 2001-1658 (La. 5/20/03), 851 So.2d 921. Yet, incredibly, more than two decades later, post-conviction review is still pending. Lawyers are called on to “make reasonable efforts to expedite litigation.” La. Rules of Prof. Conduct R. 3.2. Nevertheless, even after extensions were granted, defense counsel twice violated the district court's order barring supplemental applications. While I join the majority in the per curiam opinion, this is not indicative of my approval of any further delay in this matter. Accordingly, I urge the district court to advance this case as expeditiously as possible so that justice—in whatever form that takes—shall be done.