STATE v. WILLIAMS (2026)

Writ granted. The district court's ruling denying the State's procedural objections is reversed. Defendant asserts on collateral review that his post-conviction claims fall under the exception to the time limitations period set forth in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8, because the facts upon which the claims are predicated were not known to defendant or his prior attorney. See La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8(A)(1). Defendant specifically argues the State violated Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), by failing to disclose an alleged deal between the State and his co-defendant, Corey Dorsey, in exchange for his testimony, and the prosecution failed to correct false testimony from Mr. Dorsey and his attorney regarding this deal in violation of Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264, 79 S.Ct. 1173, 3 L.Ed.2d 1217 (1959). In support of this argument, defendant points to internal memoranda from the district attorney's office that he claims to have only recently discovered despite diligent effort. He alleges that the State reduced a first degree murder charge pending against Mr. Dorsey to an accessory after the fact to first degree murder charge in exchange for his testimony against defendant.

While a review of the memoranda suggests that the State discussed a reduction of Mr. Dorsey's charge to accessory after the fact to first degree murder with Mr. Dorsey's attorney, the documents fail to show that Mr. Dorsey or his attorney either sought or accepted a deal in exchange for his testimony against defendant. At trial, Mr. Dorsey disclosed that his initial first degree murder charge had been reduced to accessory after the fact to first degree murder, but he insisted that he had not been given a deal in exchange for his testimony. Mr. Dorsey's attorney also testified that the State had discussed a deal with him whereby Mr. Dorsey's charge would be reduced to accessory after the fact to first degree murder, but that neither he nor Mr. Dorsey were interested in any deal, and that Mr. Dorsey did not intend to plead guilty to the reduced charge of accessory after the fact to first degree murder because there was no evidence against him. Because this information was contained in the trial record, defendant fails to show how these documents qualify as newly discovered evidence. See La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.2. Thus, defendant's post-conviction application does not satisfy the exception for newly discovered evidence under La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8(A)(1), and it is untimely and procedurally barred under La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8. See State ex rel. Glover v. State, 93-2330 (La. 9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189. Defendant's application for post-conviction relief is dismissed.

PER CURIAM:

Hughes, J., concurs in the result.