STATE v. WASHINGTON (2020)

Granted in part; otherwise denied. See per curium.

Granted in part. The district court improperly denied the claim raised in petitioner's original application without ordering an evidentiary hearing. See La.C.Cr.P. art. 930(A) (evidentiary hearing required whenever there are questions of fact that cannot properly be resolved pursuant to Articles 928 and 929). The matter is remanded for the district court to conduct an evidentiary hearing at which petitioner shall be represented by counsel. Additionally, the district court erred in finding the claims in petitioner's supplemental application to be untimely. See La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8; see also State v. Washington, 50,337 (La. App. 2 Cir. 1/13/16), 185 So.3d 852, writ denied, 16-0224 (La. 2/3/17), 215 So.3d 688; La.C.Cr.P. art. 922(D). On remand, the district court shall consider whether those claims can be addressed under La.C.Cr.P. arts. 928 and 929, or whether an evidentiary hearing is required under La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.

In all other respects, the application is denied.

PER CURIAM: