STATE v. CAMPBELL (2020)

Writ application denied. See per curiam.

Denied. Applicant fails to show that 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). As to his remaining claim, applicant fails to satisfy his post-conviction burden of proof. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.2.

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.

The defendant was found guilty of possession with intent to distribute cocaine and sentenced, as a third-felony offender, to 20 years imprisonment at hard labor, with the first two years to be served without benefit of parole. He filed a timely postconviction application claiming that he received ineffective assistance of counsel, in part because his trial counsel did not communicate with a witness who claims the cocaine that the defendant allegedly possessed in fact belonged to her. The witness claims she made numerous efforts to contact the defendant's trial counsel to inform counsel of this, but to no avail.

If the witness had credible exculpatory evidence and tried to communicate that to the defendant's trial counsel but was never spoken to, then trial counsel's failure to investigate could satisfy the deficient performance prong of the ineffective assistance of counsel test enunciated in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). If the witness's testimony is corroborated or otherwise credible, its omission from the trial may have prejudiced the defendant, which would satisfy the second prong of Strickland's test. But neither of those questions can be answered without an evidentiary hearing.

Therefore I would grant the writ and remand to the trial court to conduct an evidentiary hearing on the defendant's claim that he received ineffective assistance of counsel.

Johnson, C.J., would grant and assigns reasons. Hughes, J., would grant.