Supreme Court of Louisiana, 2016

State v. Lyons

Supreme Court of Louisiana · Decided September 23, 2016 · No. 2015-KP-2197

199 So. 3d 1140; 2016 La. LEXIS 1794; 2016 WL 5376272 (Southern Reporter, Third Series)

Cases that cite this one

12 later published cases cite this decision.

State of Louisiana v. Julieanne Perales A/K/A Julianne Perales (La. Ct. App. 2024)
State of Louisiana Versus Abdellah Karim (La. Ct. App. 2020)
State of Louisiana Versus Abdellah Karim (La. Ct. App. 2020)
State of Louisiana v. Damari Jennings (La. Ct. App. 2020)
State of Louisiana v. Damari Jennings (La. Ct. App. 2020)
State v. Johnson (La. Ct. App. 2019)
State v. Johnson (La. Ct. App. 2019)
State v. Lawrence (La. Ct. App. 2019)
State v. Lawrence (La. Ct. App. 2019)
State v. Lawrence (La. Ct. App. 2019)
State v. Lawrence (La. Ct. App. 2019)
State v. Stiller (La. Ct. App. 2017)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

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) and fails to show the state withheld evidence in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963). His remaining claims are repetitive and/or unsupported. La,C.Cr.P. art. 930.2; La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4. We attach hereto and make a part hereof the District Court’s written reasons denying relator’s application.

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.

Attachment

*1141[[Image here]]

*1142[[Image here]]

*1143[[Image here]]

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.