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. Foster v. State

Supreme Court of Louisiana

September 15, 2017

STATE EX REL. ROLAND DAMOND FOSTER
v.
STATE OF LOUISIANA

         ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF CADDO

          PER CURIAM

         Denied. Relator has previously exhausted his right to state collateral review. See State ex rel. Foster v. State, 14-2377 (La. 9/25/15), 174 So.3d 1138. We attach hereto and make a part hereof the district court's written reasons denying relief.

         FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT CADDO PARISH, LOUISIANA

         STATE OF LOUISIANA

         VERSUS

         ROLAND DAMOND FOSTER

         NUMBER 233868; SECTION 5

         FILED JAN 08 2016

         RULING

          CHARLES G. TUTT DISTRICT JUDGE

         Before the Caurt is a post-conviction relief application of Roland Foster ("Foster") filed December 1, 2015. For the reasons stated hereinafter, Foster's application is DENIED.

         On October 18, 2007, Foster was convicted of possession of marijuana, third offense, and possession of cocaine with intent to distribute. He was found to be a habitual offender and was sentenced to two years at hard labor for the marijuana conviction to run concurrently with a sentence of 35 years at hard labor without benefit of probation or suspension for the conviction of possession of cocaine with intent to distribute. On appeal, the Second Circuit affirmed Foster's convictions, but vacated his sentences. State v. Foster, 43, 777-KA (La.App. 2 Cir. 1/28/09), 3 So.3d 595. The Louisiana Supreme Court, however, reinstated the sentences. State v. Foster, 2009-0617 (La. 11/25/09), 23 So.3d 885.

         Foster-filed an earlier application post-conviction relief which was denied. In this later application, Foster makes two claims. First, he claims that his trial counsel, Anthony Hollis, was ineffective in not properly informing Foster that he was waiving his right to jury trial. Second, Foster claims that he has new evidence of his actual innocence which was heretofore unavailable because the prosecution suppressed it in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 1196-97, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963) ("Brady"). Thus, he relies on the "new evidence" exception to the time limitation and the procedural bar against successive applications.

         Regarding the third offense marijuana conviction and sentence, this application is moot as the sentence is already complete. Accordingly, the Court only addresses this application as it pertains to the ...


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.