STATE EX REL. JEFFERY DAVIS
STATE OF LOUISIANA
ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE TWENTY-FOURTH JUDICIAL
DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF JEFFERSON
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.
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.
FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF JEFFERSON STATE OF
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.
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.
filed an application for post-conviction relief, alleging:
1. Ineffective assistance of trial counsel for:
counsel's failure to call Deputy Tomas and Danielle
(b) presenting bogus defense theory.
failure to call John Patton.
(d) failure to interview Maurice Williams,
failure to interview defendant or present alibi defense,
(f) failure to conduct adequate examination, and
failure to cross-examine Eunice Williams.
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. *
Ineffective assistance of appellate counsel for counsel's
failure to brief meritorious claim on appeal that verdict was
contrary to evidence presented at trial.
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.
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).