STATE EX REL. JERRY WAYNE PRICE
STATE OF LOUISIANA
SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE TWENTY-SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT
COURT, PARISH OF ST. TAMMANY
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 claim of prosecutorial
misconduct is repetitive and/or unsupported, La.C.Cr.P. art.
930.2, and barred from collateral review by La.C.Cr.P. art.
930.4. We attach hereto and make a part hereof the district
court's written reasons denying relief.
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 ST TAMMANY STATE OF
William J. Knight, Judge
13, 2015, petitioner Jerry Price filed an Application for
Post Conviction Relief. On May 28, 2015, the Court ordered
the District Attorney's office to file an answer or
procedural objections thereto. Through a clerical error, the
District Attorney's office did not receive notice of this
order until August 20, 2015. On August 28, 2015, the District
Attorney filed an answer to the application.
Price raises three claims in his application and supporting
memorandum. First, Price contends that his trial counsel was
ineffective in that counsel failed to prepare adequately for
trial or to conduct any meaningful investigation of the case.
Petitioner Price fails to provide any support to the mere
allegations and conclusory statements that his trial counsel
failed to properly investigate the case and was ineffective.
In order to carry his burden of proof relative to an
ineffective assistance of counsel claim, petitioner must
offer proof beyond general, conclusory statements. Petitioner
Price has not done so. Therefore, the Court finds that this
claim is without merit and it is denied.
petitioner argues that the State appealed to the prejudice of
the jurors in closing arguments and undermined the outcome of
the trial by referring to "credibility of the
truthfulness and identity of the detectives and confidential
informants." Additionally, petitioner Price argues that
the prosecutor's statements during closing argument were
prejudicial when he used the phrase "smoking gun."
Again, petitioner has failed to demonstrate, beyond mere
conclusory allegations, how the prosecutor's closing