STATE EX REL. CESAR ROCA
STATE OF LOUISIANA
SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE TWENTY-FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
COURT, PARISH OF JEFFERSON
The application was not timely filed in the district court,
and relator 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.
We attach hereto and make a part hereof the district
court's written reasons denying relief.
has now fully litigated three applications 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
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.
FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF JEFFERSON STATE OF
matter comes before the court on the petitioner's
APPLICATION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF, STAMPED AS
FILED JULY II. 2016.
petitioner files his second application for post-conviction
relief, challenging his 2002 convictions for aggravated rape
(two counts), aggravated oral sexual battery on a juvenile,
and molestation of a juvenile. His convictions and sentences
were upheld on direct appeal. State v. Roca, 866
So.2d 867 (La.App. 5 Cir. 1/13/04), writs denied, 877 So.2d
143 (La. 7/2/04). An earlier application for post-conviction
relief and a federal writ of habeas corpus have also been
petitioner now asserts that he obtained videos or DVDs that
were withheld from the defense and that these videos or DVDs
contain exculpatory evidence. He contends that the records of
the victims do not contain statement that the petitioner used
a gun. He continues his claim by asserting, at length, that
the law of aggravated rape, ...