STATE EX REL DRAUGHN v. VANNOY (2025)

Writ granted. Stay denied. Defendant's motion for leave to file an ex parte, under-seal affidavit is granted, but all other relief is denied. The district court's denial of defendant's motion for extension of the deadline to file his supplemental post-conviction relief application is affirmed.

Although La. C.Cr.P. art. 926 requires an application to “specif[y] with reasonable particularity the factual basis” for the relief sought, there are no requirements that a post-conviction application include or be based upon a completed, comprehensive expert report. Moreover, the deadline to file the post-conviction relief application set by the district court provided ample time to identify, develop, and draft claims. Should it be necessary, the defendant is not prevented from later supplementing his application for post-conviction relief based on new information developed through ongoing discovery. See La. C.Cr.P. art. 930.4(G).

AFFIRMED.

I respectfully dissent and would grant the stay. Unforeseen delays have prevented the defendant from obtaining purported evidence he avers is necessary for his application for post-conviction relief.¹

In this capital case, defendant motioned for a 45-day extension of the November 17, 2025 deadline to file his supplemental post-conviction application. He filed a companion motion seeking permission to file an ex parte and under-seal affidavit by counsel in support of the extension motion. The district court denied both requests without reasons. I find, based on defendant's pleadings and counsel's affidavit, that defendant has shown good cause ¹ for the extension of the filing deadline. Thus, it is my view that the district court abused its discretion, and I dissent from the majority's decision affirming the lower court's ruling.

However, I agree with the majority's conclusion that the Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure permits a post-conviction relief applicant to engage in ongoing discovery after an application is filed and to supplement the post-conviction application in the event that new, relevant information is uncovered. Indeed, this is consistent with the position of the state, which argues that La. C.Cr.P. art. 926(B)(4)² does not require “that an inmate complete his investigation in its entirety or gather every piece of conceivable evidence prior to filing a counseled supplemental petition.” Post-conviction applications do not require pre-assembly of evidence that must be filed at their initiation; rather, the initial pleadings must only rest on wellpled allegations that may be supplemented after subsequent investigation and discovery. See La. C.Cr.P. art. 926(B)(4); see also La. C.Cr.P. art. 930.4(G) (discussing the requirements for filing a supplement to a post-conviction application).

FOOTNOTES

1.   For example, in response to an October 14, 2025 inquiry from defense counsel, custodian of records at the Caddo District Attorney's Office, replied “I am sorry to tell you that we are having problems locating one of the boxes in the murder case and another one of the files․” While the custodian continues to search for this missing evidence, no update has been provided.

1.   I acknowledge that La. C.Cr.P. art. 930.11 (eff. Aug. 1, 2025) provides time delays for post-conviction proceedings and allows for extensions of deadlines contained therein. See La. C.Cr.P. art. 930.11(F). However, I find that it does not apply here because it was enacted after this Court remanded this case to the district court with instructions to “establish a briefing schedule, subject to amendment only for good cause, so that defendant may file a counseled supplement to his pro se post-conviction application.” State v. Draughn, 2025-0424, p.1 (La. 4/11/25), 405 So. 3d 562, 563 (emphasis added). The district court likewise imposed a good cause showing for any alteration to its May 1, 2025 scheduling order. Therefore, in this case, the “good cause” standard imposed by this Court and the court below applied to defendant's motion for extension of the filing deadline.

2.   La. C.Cr.P. art. 926, provides, in pertinent part,B. The [post-conviction] petition shall allege all of the following:․(4) A statement of the grounds upon which relief is sought, alleged in good faith and specifying with reasonable particularity the factual basis for such relief.

PER CURIAM

Weimer, C.J., dissents and would grant and docket. Guidry, J., concurs in part, dissents in part, and assigns reasons.