| denied. Relator fails to show he was denied access to the courts by an arbitrary and unjustified enforcement of the uniform rules governing the filing of applications in the court of appeal, and thus shows no error in the Third Circuit’s denial of writs on technical grounds. La.C.Cr.P. art. 912.1(C). Furthermore-, the District Court correctly found that relator’s claims regarding the validity of his guilty plea were fully litigated on appeal. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4.

*676Relator has now fully litigated several 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 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 preview. The District Court is ordered to record a minute entry consistent with this per curiam.

dissents and would consider the merits, finding the approach taken by the court of appeal overly technical as applied to pro se litigants.