Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State ex rel. Johnson v. State

Supreme Court of Louisiana

April 7, 2017

STATE EX REL. ROBERT DEWAYNE JOHNSON
v.
STATE OF LOUISIANA

         ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF OUACHITA

          PER CURIAM

         Denied. 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 application.

         Relator 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 curiam.

         RULING ON APPLICATION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF

          C. WENDELL MANNING JUDGE

         On 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.

         Defendant 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.

         If the 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.

         Defendant's Application alleges two claims for relief:

         1. Hie evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for Armed Robbery; and

         2. His sentence was excessive.

         The State objects 10 both claims on procedural grounds or, in the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.