STATE EX REL. ROLAND DAMOND FOSTER
STATE OF LOUISIANA
SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT,
PARISH OF CADDO
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.
JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT CADDO PARISH, LOUISIANA
233868; SECTION 5
JAN 08 2016
CHARLES G. TUTT DISTRICT JUDGE
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
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.
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.
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 ...