STATE OF LOUISIANA v. HENRY TAYLOR (2025)

In a petition filed on April 23, 2024, defendant seeks post-conviction relief for a 1981 conviction for an aggravated rape that occurred in 1980. To evade the applicable two-year time limit to file the petition, defendant relies on a waiver filed by the state on May 24, 2024. At that time, such waivers were permitted in post-conviction proceedings under a 2021 amendment to Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure articles 930.4G and 930.8D. See 2021 La. Acts 104 (effective 8/1/21). Shortly after the state filed the waiver, the legislature again amended Articles 930.4 and 930.8 to eliminate the waiver provision and declare the procedural limitations on post-conviction relief “shall be jurisdictional and shall not be waived or excused by the court or the district attorney.” See 2024 La. Acts 10 (effective 8/1/24).

Defendant's petition is thus reviewable only because it was filed during a brief window of time when the legislature allowed the state to waive certain procedural objections in post-conviction proceedings. That window is now closed. If filed today, defendant's petition could not be considered by the court.

Our holding allows an evidentiary hearing on the petition but makes no findings on its merits. The request focuses on a jury charge and relies on a case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court almost ten years after defendant's conviction. See Cage v. Louisiana, 498 U.S. 39; 111 S.Ct. 328, 329; 112 L.Ed.2d 339 (1990) (per curiam), disapproved of by Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62; 112 S.Ct. 475; 116 L.Ed.2d 385 (1991). This court has already held Cage does not apply retroactively to cases on collateral review. See State ex rel. Taylor v. Whitley, 606 So.2d 1292, 1299 (La. 1992). Nothing in today's decision changes that holding.

Our criminal justice system is designed as an adversarial process with the state and victims postured adversely with the accused, and the judiciary serving as the neutral arbiter, with checks throughout the process for protection of those interests. See La. Const. art. I, §§ 3, 13-20, 25; art. V; La. Code Crim Pro. arts. 17, 61-66; La. R.S. 46:1841-46. If those checks are realigned, the system of criminal justice risks failing. Another check against that potential failure is the constitutional authority for the Attorney General to intervene in proceedings as necessary for the protection of the state's interest. See La. Const. art. IV, § 8; State v. Lee, 22-01827 (La. 9/1/23), 370 So. 3d 408, 412, n.4, reh'g denied, 22-01827 (La. 10/19/23). For these reasons, I concur.

CRAIN, J., concurring.