dissents and assigns reasons:

Jjl respectfully dissent. I would deny Trivenskey Odom’s writ application as I do not believe that his claims, as presented, warrant an evidentiary hearing. La. C.Cr.P. Art. 930.2; see State v. Pierre, 13-0873 (La. 10/15/13), 125 So.3d 403; State v. Conway, 01-2808 (La. 4/12/02), 816 So.2d 290. Odom’s remaining claims are untimely. La. C.Cr.P. Art. 930.8; State ex rel. Glover v. State, 93-2330 (La. 9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189. Further, I would deem Odom’s claims fully litigated in these state collateral proceedings in accord with La. C.Cr.P. Art. 930.6 and thus final.

dissenting.

Ill would deny.

| (Writ granted in part; case remanded. The District Court is ordered to conduct an evidentiary hearing limited to the issue of whether relator is entitled to a new trial based on the victim’s recantation. See Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 92 S.Ct. 763, 31 L.Ed.2d 104 (1972); Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264, 79 S.Ct. 1173, 3 L.Ed.2d 1217 (1959); see also State v. Pierre, 13-0873 (La. 10/15/13), 125 So.3d 403; State v. Conway, 01-2808 (La. 4/12/02), 816 So.2d 290. Relator’s remaining claims are untimely, see La.C.Cr.P. Art. 930.8; State ex rel. Glover v. State, 93-2330 (La. 9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189, and in all other respects, the application is denied.