STATE v. FRANK (2026)

Writ granted in part. In early 2008, defendant's 1995 capital conviction and sentence became final. See State v. Frank, 1999-0553 (La. 1/17/01), 803 So.2d 1, as revised (Apr. 16, 2001) (remanding, in part, as to sentence), 1999-0553 (La. 5/22/07), 957 So.2d 724 (affirming sentence), cert. denied, 552 U.S. 1189, 128 S.Ct. 1220, 170 L.Ed.2d 75 (2008). In April 2008, defendant timely filed her initial pro se shell application for post-conviction relief. On July 1, 2009, she filed a counseled supplement to that application raising 18 claims for relief, and on July 20, 2024, she filed a second supplement raising six additional claims.

The state filed procedural objections to the application on April 28, 2025. Therein, the state raised a variety of arguments, including an assertion that the application should be dismissed pursuant to La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8(B)¹ due to prejudice the state suffered as a result of the 15-year delay between the filing of the 2009 application and the 2024 supplement. At a hearing on May 15, 2025, the district court denied all of the state's procedural objections. The court likewise denied the state's request for a dedicated hearing on its Article 930.8(B) objection. In its brief written reasons, the district court announced that “the application is not procedurally barred and is not out of time, as the 2009 Application was not filed out of time, and the 2024 pleading is a supplement to an existing Application.”

As noted above, Article 930.8(B) expressly provides that an application for post-conviction relief may be dismissed if the district court “finds, after a hearing limited to that issue, that the state's ability to respond to, negate, or rebut such allegations has been materially prejudiced thereby” (emphasis added). While we acknowledge that this language only requires a hearing before the district court grants the objection and dismisses the application, this Court has previously interpreted the provision to give the state the right to demand a hearing on the objection. See State v. Lanieu, 2003-2640 (La. 10/1/04), 885 So.2d 512, 512 (“[I]f delays caused by matters outside the control of the state have prejudiced the state, it may invoke La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8(B) and demand a hearing on that issue.”) Under the circumstances of this case, we find the district court abused its discretion in denying the state's Article 930.8(B) procedural objection to defendant's post-conviction application without first conducting a hearing limited to that issue.

Accordingly, we reverse the district court's denial of the state's procedural objection pursuant to Article 930.8(B) and remand the matter for a hearing limited to the issue of material prejudice pursuant to that provision.² If the state makes the required showing under Article 930.8(B), the district court shall dismiss the relevant claims for relief. Otherwise, we retain this writ application and will consider the remaining issues following the district court's ruling on the state's Article 930.8(B) procedural objection.

The previously imposed stay of district court proceedings is lifted only to the extent necessary to comply with this per curiam. The state's motion to consolidate is denied.

REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED.

FOOTNOTES

1.   At the time of the district court's ruling on May 15, 2025, La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8(B) provided,An application for post conviction relief which is timely filed, or which is allowed under an exception to the time limitation as set forth in Paragraph A of this Article, shall be dismissed upon a showing by the state of prejudice to its ability to respond to, negate, or rebut the allegations of the petition caused by events not under the control of the state which have transpired since the date of original conviction, if the court finds, after a hearing limited to that issue, that the state's ability to respond to, negate, or rebut such allegations has been materially prejudiced thereby.

2.   In ruling on the objection, the district court may be guided by this Court's recent decision in State v. Reed, 2025-0829 (La. 2/12/26), 427 So.3d 733).

PER CURIAM