STATE EX REL. JOHNNIE CAUSEY
STATE OF LOUISIANA
SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF
Relator does not identify an illegal term in his sentence,
and therefore his filing is properly construed as an
application for post-conviction relief. See State v.
Parker, 98-0256 (La. 5/8/98), 711 So.2d 694. As such, it
is subject to the time limitation set forth in La.C.Cr.P.
art. 930.8. Relator's application was not timely filed in
the district court, and he fails to carry his burden to show
that an exception applies. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8; State
ex rel. Glover v. State, 93-2330 (La. 9/5/95), 660 So.2d
1189. In addition, relator's sentencing claim is not
cognizable on collateral review. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.3;
State ex rel. Melinie v. State, 93-1380 (La.
1/12/96), 665 So.2d 1172; see also State v. Cotton,
09-2397 (La. 10/15/10), 45 So.3d 1030. We attach hereto and
make a part hereof the district court's written reasons
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.
matter comes before the Court on a Motion to Correct an
Illegal Sentence. A review of the record reveals that this
sentence is legal in all respects
Causey contends that he is deserving of this relief because
of the trial court's failure to advise him of his rights
to challenge the multiple bill filed against him. This
conviction became final more than two years ago. This Court
is of the opinion that this motion is actually an application
for post-conviction relief that is being labeled a motion to
correct illegal sentence to avoid the obvious prescription
problems. Such an attempt to circumvent the time limitation
provided by Article 930.8 was addressed by the Supreme Court
in State v Parker, 711 So.2d 694, H98-0256 (La.
Because Parker's filing below did not point to a
claimed illegal term in his sentence, he did not raise a
claim cognizable in a motion to correct an illegal
sentence. Instead, he raised a claim of trial error
properly cognizable in an application for post-conviction
relief if at all. Accordingly the "at any time"
language of La.C.Cr.P. art. 882 does not apply to
Parker's filing and the three-year prescriptive period
of La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8 applies instead. See State ex re]
Stepter v. Whitley, 93-2346 (La.10/13/95), 661
same is true of Mr. Causey's present motion. Accordingly,
his motion is DENIED.
Justice Hughes would grant for the reasons.
JOHNSON, C.J., would grant the writ application and assigns
grant defendant's writ application, finding his 13-year
sentence on a possession of marijuana charge excessive.
2010, defendant entered an Alford plea to one count
of possession of marijuana. The district court sentenced
defendant to 5 years imprisonment at hard labor. Following
habitual offender proceedings, the district court adjudicated
defendant as a fourth-felony habitual offender, vacated the
5-year sentence, and resentenced defendant to 20 years
imprisonment at hard labor, without the benefit of probation,
parole, or suspension of sentence. The court of appeal
affirmed the defendant's conviction but vacated the
fourth offender adjudication and sentence and remanded the
case to the district court. Defendant was then adjudicated as
a third-felony offender, and resentenced to 13 years
imprisonment at hard labor.
2016, the district court denied defendant's motion to
correct an illegal sentence. The court of appeal then denied
writs, finding no error in the district court's ruling.
The majority ...