STATE v. WATTS (2020)

Writ application denied. See per curiam.

Denied. The application was not timely filed in the district court, and applicant fails to carry his burden to show that an exception applies. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8; State ex rel. Glover v. State, 93-2330 (La. 9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189.

Applicant 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. Applicant'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, applicant has exhausted his right to state collateral review. The district court is ordered to record a minute entry consistent with this per curiam.

On Supervisory Writ to the Criminal District Court, Parish of Orleans

Defendant and his co-defendant, Joseph Norah, filed an application for post-conviction relief claiming the State violated Brady v. Maryland, based on information contained in an audio recording in the district attorney's file. The defendant and his co-defendant allegedly obtained the material from the district attorney's file in March 2018, after being told that it would cost $218.50 in September 2015. Basic starting prison wages in Louisiana are four cents per hour, with restrictions on how much of the four cents a prisoner may put in his savings account and how long a prisoner must be incarcerated before he is permitted to earn incentive wages. Under these circumstances, even if both applicant and his co-defendant pooled all of their permitted prison wage savings, it would have taken more than two years for them both to save the money to purchase the material they claim is exculpatory from the district attorney's file.

However, the defendants did not include in their appendices any of the underlying pleadings in the trial court such as their Reply to the State's procedural and time-bar objections to their post-conviction application. Therefore there is insufficient information before this court to grant the writ and remand for a hearing on the defendants’ diligence in seeking the new information on which their post-conviction applications are based pursuant to La. C. Cr. P. art. 930.8(A)(1).

Because this matter involves a Brady claim against a district attorney's office with a history of disregarding the State's constitutional obligation to disclose favorable information to the defense, I would allow defendant to supplement his writ application with the referenced pleadings and correspondence and potentially avoid years of injustice.

Johnson, C.J., dissents and assigns reasons.