STATE v. PRESTON (2020)

Writ application denied.

I concur in our denial of the State's writ application. I write separately to point out that the State's practice of seeking supervisory writs from adverse procedural rulings in post-conviction proceedings is not authorized by statute, wastes judicial resources, and can delay justice in criminal cases.

Here, the district court denied the State's procedural objection. That ruling did not dismiss the application, otherwise deny relief on the claim presented, or grant petitioner relief. Therefore, under the plain language of La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.6, no party was authorized to invoke the supervisory jurisdiction of the court of appeal at that stage of the proceedings, and the State's writ application in the court of appeal was premature. Once relief is either granted or denied, then the appropriate party may seek supervisory review in the court of appeal in accordance with the article. If relief is granted to the petitioner, nothing precludes the State from asserting its procedural objections as a reason the district court's grant of relief should be reversed. Cf. State ex rel. Glover v. State, 93-2330, p. 22 (La. 9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189, 1201 (“In our view, the fact that the trial court reached the merits in an untimely filed application for post conviction relief, when the application did not fit within one of the exceptions in Art. 930.8(A), did not preclude the court of appeal from raising Art. 930.8's time bar.”).

But as this case demonstrates, permitting writs from non-final judgements during post-conviction proceedings often delays justice. Defendant's post-conviction litigation in the instant case began in earnest in 2014, yet his application is still pending in 2020 with no answer on the merits yet filed by the State. This is so despite the district court having twice overruled the State's procedural objections and ordered the State to answer the defendant's claims on the merits. The State's two writ applications from the district court's rulings have delayed the resolution of this case by six years, wasting judicial time and resources and frustrating this defendant's efforts to have a court hear his claim of an unjust conviction. The State has no legitimate interest in causing such a delay. A prosecutor has “the responsibility of a minister of justice and not simply that of an advocate.” Model Rules of Prof'l Conduct R. 3.8 cmt[1] (Am. Bar. Ass'n 1983). The State's “interest, therefore, in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done.” Berger v. U.S., 295 U.S. 78, 88, 55 S.Ct. 629, 79 L.Ed. 1314 (1935).

If the defendant was justly convicted, the State's procedural writs have only delayed that conclusion. If, however, the defendant was unjustly convicted, the State's procedural writs have prolonged an unjust imprisonment.

Johnson, C.J., additionally concurs and assigns reasons.