STATE EX REL. JOSEPH LEMOINE
STATE OF LOUISIANA
SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE TWENTY-SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT
COURT, PARISH OF WASHINGTON
Relator fails to show 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 the remaining claims, relator fails to satisfy
his post-conviction burden of proof. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.2.
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 that article to make the procedural
bars against successive filings mandatory. Relator'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,
relator has exhausted his right to state collateral review.
The District Court is ordered to record a minute entry
consistent with this per curiam.
JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF WASHINGTON STATE OF
EX REL. JOSEPH LEMOINE
ON POST-CONVICTION WITH INCORPORATED REASONS
J. Hand, Judge.
6, 2015, petitioner Joseph Lemoine filed a timely application
for Post-Conviction Relief, After considering the application
and the applicable law, the Court finds the application may
be dismissed upon the pleadings pursuant to La. C.Cr.P. art.
record shows Lemoine was charged by grand jury indictment
with aggravated rape, a violation of La. R.S. 14:42.
Following a jury trial, Lemoine was found guilty as charged.
After post-verdict motions were denied, Lemoine was sentenced
to life imprisonment at hard labor without the benefit of
probation, parole, or suspension of sentence. Lemoine's
conviction and sentence were affirmed on appeal in an
unpublished opinion; writs were denied at the Louisiana
Supreme Court. State v. Lemoine, 2013-0141 (La.App.
1 Cir. 11/1/13); 2013 WL 5915144 (not reported); writ
denied, 2013-2740 (La. 4/25/14); 138 So.3d 644 (Mem.).
files a timely application for post-conviction relief,
raising six claims: (1) he was aenied due process and a full,
fair appellate review due to the court reporter's failure
to transcribe the side bar conferences during voir dire; (2)
there was insufficient evidence to support the conviction;
(3) he was afforded ineffective assistance of counsel; (4)
the state improperly introduced expert testimony; (5) he was
denied due process due to the state's intentional
misconduct during closing argument; and (6) the cumulative
effect of the errors denied him a fair trial.
court notes initially that there was no objection made by
trial counsel with regard to the factual circumstances
underlying these claims; in addition, none of these claims
were raised by appellate counsel in the direct appeal of this
matter. In his post-conviction application, Lemcine claims
these issues were not previously raised because he had not
yet had a chance to review the record. However, Lemoine's
counsel had an opportunity to do so and failed to
object during the trial or to include these issues on direct
appeal. The court finds these claims are procedurally
defaulted. Nevertheless, and notwithstanding the ...