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. Ramos v. State

Supreme Court of Louisiana

October 9, 2017

STATE EX REL. ELMER RAMOS
v.
STATE OF LOUISIANA

         ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE TWENTY-THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF ASCENSION

          PER CURIAM

         Denied. 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). 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-THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT FOR THE PARISH OF ASCENSION STATE OF LOUISIANA, DIVISION B

         STATE OF LOUISIANA

         v.

         ELMER RAMOS

         No. 30, 567

         JUDGMENT

          THOMAS J. KLIEBERT, JR. JUDGE

         The Court having reviewed the defendant's application for post-conviction relief filed on January 4, 2016, in the captioned matter, along with supporting documents in the record, including the ruling by the First Circuit Court of Appeal affirming the conviction and sentence in the captioned matter;

         In Claim One the defendant argues that he has been denied his constitutional rights to appellate review and to any free copies of the records to have adequate opportunity to fairly present his constitutional claims on post-conviction. The Court's review of the record does not contain any request of Court records of his proceedings prior to the filing of this post-conviction relief application and therefore the Court finds that the defendant failed to show that his constitutional rights were violated to appellate review and free copies of the records.

         The defendant also raises issues in his claim of being denied effective assistance of counsel when being denied a Motion to Continue his trial and when the Court failed to appoint a Spanish Interpreter. The Court notes that this issue was raised by the defendant in his appeal of this matter to the First Circuit Court of Appeal. Defendant's sentence and conviction in the captioned matter was if firmed. The First Circuit Court of Appeal noting that the defendant did have a court-appointed interpreter during his entire trial as well as pre-trial hearings and that the defendant could speak ...


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.