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.

Duperon v. Kent

United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana

July 12, 2019

CARL A. DUPERON
v.
JASON KENT AND ATTORNEY GENERAL STATE OF LOUISIANA

         SECTION “B”

          ORDER AND REASONS

         Before the Court are petitioner Carl Duperon's pro se application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Rec. Doc. 3), the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (“Report”) (Rec. Doc. 12), and petitioner's objections (Rec. Doc. 15). For the reasons enumerated below, IT IS ORDERED that the objections are OVERRULED; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge's Report is ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court;

         IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner's claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

         FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

         On February 14, 2012, petitioner was found guilty of aggravated arson. See Rec. Doc. 12 at 3. On February 23, 2012, the trial court denied petitioner's motions for a new trial and post-verdict judgement of acquittal. Id. The trial court then sentenced petitioner to eighteen years in prison, and subsequently denied his motion to reconsider the sentence. Id.

         On direct appeal, petitioner argued the trial court erred in denying two of his motions to suppress evidence. See Id. at 3-4. The first being his motion to suppress evidence seized without a warrant. Id. at 3. The second being his motion to suppress an uncorroborated anonymous tip. Id. at 3-4. The Louisiana First Circuit Court held that the two challenges were procedurally barred. See Id. at 4.

         Petitioner also asserted the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support the verdict, a claim that the First Circuit Court found to be meritless. Id.

         On January 22, 2013, petitioner's sentence and conviction became final as he failed to file for rehearing or seek a writ of certiorari from the Louisiana Supreme Court. Id; Butler v. Cain, 533 F.3d 314, 317 (5th Cir. 2008) (citing Roberts v. Cockrell, 319 F.3d 690, 693 (5th Cir. 2003)) (stating that an appeal is final when a state defendant does not timely proceed throughout the appellate process).

         On June 25, 2013, petitioner submitted an application for post-conviction relief to the trial court. See Rec. Doc. 12 at 4. On August 15, 2013, the application was denied as meritless and petitioner did not seek timely review of this ruling. Id. at 5. On January 9, 2014, petitioner filed a federal habeas corpus petition to this Court, seeking relief on several grounds. Id. On August 13, 2015, his petition was dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust state court remedies. Id.

         On September 4, 2015, petitioner sought review of the state trial court's August 15, 2013 order denying his post-conviction application. See id. at 5. On November 4, 2015, the First Circuit Court denied this writ application. Id. at 6. On March 13, 2017, the Louisiana Supreme Court also denied petitioner's writ application, noting his failure to establish ineffective assistance of counsel. Id.

         On April 14, 2017, petitioner filed the instant application of habeas corpus without identifying specific grounds for relief. See id. However, petitioner directed the Court to review all of his prior filings.[1] Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge presumed petitioner intended to submit all previously asserted claims. Id.

         Specifically, the Magistrate Judge presumed the petitioner's habeas application asks the Court to consider: (1) the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence seized without a warrant; (2) the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress an uncorroborated anonymous tip, and insufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict; (3) his ineffective assistance of trial counsel claim; (4) his ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claim; (5) the clerk of court's failure to deliver paperwork to appellate counsel; and (6) whether certain issues would have revealed a different outcome at trial. See Id. at 6-7.

         MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

         Magistrate Judge Roby recommends that petitioner's instant application be dismissed with prejudice because it is time-barred. See Id. at 14. Petitioner had one year from the date of his conviction to file a petition for habeas corpus relief. Id. at 9. Petitioner did not submit the instant petition until over two years after the applicable one year statute of limitations expired. Id. ...


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.