HAYDEN v. BOUTTE (2021)

Writ application granted. See per curiam.

Writ granted. The case is remanded to the district court for consideration of the merits of the post-conviction application. Cheri Hayden has made a sufficient showing under the particular circumstances of her case that her constitutional claims rest on facts not known to her or her prior attorney, and she exercised diligence in attempting to discover those claims. See La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8(A)(1); State ex rel. Cormier v. State, 98-2111 (La. 12/18/98), 731 So. 2d 274 (“[T]he discovery of new evidence excepting a claim from the prescriptive period of La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8 would necessarily except a claim from the repetitiveness bars of La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4.”). The custodian, through the district attorney, shall file an answer on the merits of the claims pursuant to La.C.Cr.P. art. 927(A). Thereafter, the district court is directed to conduct an evidentiary hearing and consider the merits of the post-conviction application in light of all of the evidence. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930. Furthermore, we direct the trial court to reconsider the motions for subpoenas duces tecum under the criteria for pre-hearing access to materials in the possession of others provided in State v. Marcelin, 10-2036, p. 2 (La. 10/15/10), 46 So.3d 191, 193. Marcelin requires the moving party seeking a pre-hearing subpoena duces tecum to show: (1) relevancy; (2) admissibility; and (3) specificity. Id. The motion to remand is denied as moot. Ms. Hayden may supplement her post-conviction application with the Tabitha Chiasson affidavit.

Genovese, J., would deny.