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. Abdul v. State

Supreme Court of Louisiana

August 4, 2017

STATE EX REL. HASSAN A. ABDUL, IV
v.
STATE OF LOUISIANA

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

          PER CURIAM

         Denied. Relator's claims regarding the sufficiency of the evidence and those related to his waiver of counsel are repetitive. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4. See also State v. Abdul, 11-0863 (La.App. 5 Cir. 4/24/12), 94 So.3d 801, writ denied sub nom. State ex rel. Abdul v. State, 12-1224 (La. 10/12/12), 99 So.3d 41, and State ex rel. Abdul v. State, 12-1226 (La. 10/12/12), 99 So.3d 41. As to the remaining claims, relator fails to satisfy his post-conviction burden of proof. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.2. In addition, many of the claims are not preserved for review by contemporaneous objection and relator cannot complain his self-representation was inadequate. Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 834, 95 S.Ct. 2525, 2541, n.46, 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975); see also State v. Dupre, 500 So.2d 873, 878 (La.App. 1 Cir. 1986). We attach hereto and make a part hereof the district court's written reasons denying relief.

         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

         STATE OF LOUISIANA

         v.

         HASSAN ABDUL

         NO. 09-4415

         October 16, 2015

         DIVISION "C"

         ORDER

         This matter comes before the court on the petitioner's APPLICATION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF, STAMPED AS FILED JUNE 30, 2015, AND THE STATE'S RESPONSE. STAMPED AS FILED OCTOBER 9, 2015.

         In this pro se application, the petitioner challenges his conviction for attempted second degree murder. The petitioner's conviction and sentence have twice been upheld by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal. State v. Abdul, 11-863 (La.App. 5th Cir. 04/24/12), 94 So.3d 801), writ denied, 12-1224 (La. 10/12/12), 99 So.3d 41 and State v. Abdul, 13-566 (La.App. 5th Cir. 12/12/13), 131 So.3d 365, writ denied, 14-0249 (La. 10/10/14), 150 So.3d 895.

         ISSUES

         The petitioner raises eight claims for relief. They are:

(1) Insufficient evidence to support the offense of attempted second degree murder, prosecutor failed to provide to the court forensic evidence, and direct evidence to establish the guilt of attempted second degree murder.
(2) Insufficient evidence on the basis of actual innocence.
(3) Judge denied petitioner the right to counsel and subjected the petitioner to self-representation without a proper hearing.
(4) Petitioner was denied effective assistance of counsel.
(5) The trial judge erred in failing to declare a mistrial due to remarks made by a juror duing trial that were clearly biased and prejudicial.
(6) 911 tapes should have been excluded because statement violates confrontation clause, hearsay provisions, and evidentiary rules prohibiting evidence of other crimes.
(7) During prosecutor's closing and rebuttal argument, the state argued facts not in evidence, improperly vouched for an expert witness, improperly asserted prosecutor's opinion, and ...

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.