STATE v. JONES (2017)

ORDER

 This matter comes before the court on the petitioner's APPLICATION FOR POST–CONVICTION RELIEF, STAMPED AS FILED JUNE 11, 2015.

Petitioner seeks post-conviction relief to challenge his 2008 convictions for gun and drug charges.

Petitioner has challenged his convictions previously. His direct appeal was denied in Stale v. Jones, 09-688 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2/9/10), 33 So.3d 306. A previous application for post-conviction relief was denied as untimely with the ruling upheld by higher courts. State v. Jones, 13–KH–571, (La. 5 Cir. 8/1/13), writ denied, 13–KH–2113 (La. 4/17/14), 138 So.3d 619. Federal habeas corpus relief has also been sought, without success.

In this application, the petitioner asserts newly discovered evidence excuses him from procedural defaults. He particularly argues that on July 11, 2013, he received the search warrant and affidavit in support. He argues that the search warrant was signed three days after the search occurred.

No application for post-conviction relief may be considered if it is filed more than two years after the judgment of conviction and sentence have become final (unless one of four very restricted exceptions apply). LSA–C.Cr.P. art. 930.8(A). Defendant does not meet any of the exceptions far filing an untimely application.

Upon review, the court finds the petitioner or his attorney had received or had prior knowledge of the date of the search warrant. It is significant that the warrant and affidavit in support were introduced at trial. The petitioner's failure to raise the issue prior to trial precludes him from now raising the issue, under LSA–C.Cr.P. art. 930.8(B).

The court finds none of the exceptions to the time bar of LSA–C.Cr.P. art. 930.8 to be present. The court also finds this application is successive and thus barred by application of LSA–C.Cr.P. art. 930.4(E).

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED BY THE COURT that the application for post-conviction relief is hereby DENIED.