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. Davis v. State

Supreme Court of Louisiana

June 5, 2017

STATE EX REL. JEFFERY DAVIS
v.
STATE OF LOUISIANA

          ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE TWENTY-FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF JEFFERSON

          PER CURIAM

         Denied. 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). In addition, relator's claims of prosecutorial misconduct are procedurally-barred. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4. As to the remaining claim, 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 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 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.

         TWENTY FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF JEFFERSON STATE OF LOUISIANA

         ORDER

         This matter comes before the 'court on petitioner's APPLICATION FOR POSTCONVICTION RELIEF, STAMPED AS FILED MAY 27, 2015, STATE'S PROCEDURAL OBJECTIONS, STAMPED AS F1LEED AUGUST 17, 2015, AND STATE'S MERITS RESPONSE, STAMPED AS FILED SEPTEMBER 3, 2015.

         On October 5, 2012, petitioner was convicted of LSA-R.S. 14:30, 1, second degree murder. On October 11. 2012, the court sentenced him to life imprisonment at hard labor. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal affirmed the defendant's conviction. Stale v. Davis. i3-fCA-237 (La.App. 5 Cir. 10/30/13), 128 So.3d 1163, writ denied, 2014-K-2751 (La. 5/23/14)i MOSo.3d723.

         Petitioner filed an application for post-conviction relief, alleging:

1. Ineffective assistance of trial counsel for:

         (a) counsel's failure to call Deputy Tomas and Danielle Baydas,

(b) presenting bogus defense theory.

         (c) failure to call John Patton.

(d) failure to interview Maurice Williams,

         (e) failure to interview defendant or present alibi defense,

(f) failure to conduct adequate examination, and

         (g) failure to cross-examine Eunice Williams.

         2. Prosecution committed misconduct:

(a) with false and misleading statements.
(b) allowing false testimony to go uncorrected, and
(c) failure to make potentially exculpatory evidence available to defense. *

         3. Ineffective assistance of appellate counsel for counsel's failure to brief meritorious claim on appeal that verdict was contrary to evidence presented at trial.

         Claim #2(a)

         As to the claim regarding prosecutor's misleading statements in closing arguments, as the State surmises in its response, this claim is procedurally barred from review under LSA-C.Cr.P. art. 930.4(C), which states if the application alleges a claim that was raised at trial, but was inexcusably not pursued on appeal, the court shall deny relief. This issue was objected to at trial, was raised in petitioner's motion for new trial, but petitioner failed to raise the claim on appeal. The court finds this claim procedurally barred from review.

         Additionally, the court finds that under Stale ex ml. Rice v. State, 749 So.2d 650 (La. 1999), petitioner's proper use of the Uniform Application satisfies the requirement of LSA-C.Cr.P. art. 930.4(F).

         Claim ...


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.