STATE EX REL. ROBERT DEWAYNE JOHNSON
STATE OF LOUISIANA
SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT,
PARISH OF OUACHITA
The claims are repetitive, see La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4, and
relator's sentencing claim is not cognizable on
collateral review. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.3; State ex rel.
Melinie v. State, 93-1380 (La. 1/12/96), 665 So.2d 1172.
We attach hereto and make a part hereof the district
court's written reasons denying relator's
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 La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4 to make the
procedural bars against successive filings mandatory.
Relator's claims have now been fully litigated in state
collateral proceedings 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, relator has exhausted his
right to state collateral review. The district court is
ordered to record a minute entry consistent with this per
ON APPLICATION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF
WENDELL MANNING JUDGE
January 2.3, 2012, [lie defendant, Robert D. Johnson, was
found guilty by a unanimous jury of the crime of armed
robbery, and ho was subsequently .sentenced to sixty (60)
years at hard labor without benefits. On August 7, 2013,
Defendant's conviction and sentence were affirmed by the
Second Circuit Court of Appeal, and the Louisiana Supreme
Court denied his writ application on March 14, 2014.
Defendant timely filed an Application for Post-Conviction
Relief. Upon receipt of this Application, the Court ordered
the Stale to tile any procedural objections it might have or,
if there were no procedural objections, to file an answer on
the merits in accordance with La. C.Cr.P. Art. 927(A). When
the Court did not receive a response from the Slate, it
issued a Supplemental Order directing the State to review its
records to determine whether an answer had been filed and, if
none had been tiled, to do so within fifteen (15) days. The
Court has now received the State's Response to
Defendant's Application for Post-Conviction Relief, filed
May 13, 2015, prior to the deadline.
has now filed a pleading Styled "Motion To Gran!
Petitioner's Application for Post Conviction Relief Due
to Slate's Refusal To Comply with Order of this
Court". However, as noted above, the Slate had filed a
response prior 10 Defendant filing this new pleading. Thus,
the Motion, filed June 16, 2015, is moot.
Court determines that the factual and legal issues raised in
an application for postconviction relief can be resolved
based upon the application, the answer, and the supporting
documents, including relevant transcripts, depositions, and
other reliable documents submitted by either party or
available to the Court, the Court may grant or deny relief
without the necessity of an evidentiary hearing or other
further proceedings. La, C.Cr.P. Art. 929(A). Having reviewed
Defendant's application, the State's response, and
the documents submitted by both parties as well as the record
m these proceedings, the Court determines that it can decide
these matters based on said application and answer and
relevant portions of the record without die necessity of an
evidentiary hearing and thus issues the following ruling.
Application alleges two claims for relief:
evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for Armed
sentence was excessive.
State objects 10 both claims on procedural grounds or, in the