STATE v. CARTER (2018)

Denied. Relator fails to show he received ineffective assistance of counsel under the standard of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). Relator also fails to show the state withheld material exculpatory evidence in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963). In addition, relator's sentencing claim is not cognizable on collateral review. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.3;  State ex rel. Melinie v. State, 93-1380 (La. 1/12/96), 665 So.2d 1172;  see also State v. Cotton, 09-2397 (La. 10/15/10), 45 So.3d 1030. Finally, the remainder of relator's claims are repetitive. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4.

Relator has now fully litigated his application for post-conviction relief in state court. Similar to federal habeas relief, see 28 U.S.C. § 2244, Louisiana post-conviction procedure envisions the filing of a second or successive application only under the narrow circumstances provided in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4 and within the limitations period as set out in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8. Notably, the legislature in 2013 La. Acts 251 amended that article to make the procedural bars against successive filings mandatory. Relator's claims have now been fully litigated in accord with La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.6, and this denial is final. Hereafter, unless he can show that one of the narrow exceptions authorizing the filing of a successive application applies, relator has exhausted his right to state collateral review. The district court is ordered to record a minute entry consistent with this per curiam.

I agree with the Court's decision to deny the writ application in this post-conviction matter. I write separately to note the deficient performance of defense counsel, as I have previously observed. State v. Hickman, 2017-0142 (La. 9/29/17, 2), 227 So.3d 246, 247 (Crichton, J., concurring) (noting “defense counsel's writ application to this court lacked legal support and was riddled with typographical errors, amounting to nothing more than an unsupported, near incomprehensible court filing.”). As this writ application is no different, I remain concerned about the quality of defense counsel's work in these important post-conviction matters.