From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Cushenberry

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
Jan 22, 2020
287 So. 3d 713 (La. 2020)

Opinion

No. 2019-KH-0740

01-22-2020

STATE of Louisiana v. Leonardo CUSHENBERRY


PER CURIAM:

Denied. Applicant fails to show that 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). As to his remaining claims, applicant fails to satisfy his post-conviction burden of proof. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.2.

Applicant 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 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. Applicant'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, applicant has exhausted his right to state collateral review. The district court is ordered to record a minute entry consistent with this per curiam.


Summaries of

State v. Cushenberry

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
Jan 22, 2020
287 So. 3d 713 (La. 2020)
Case details for

State v. Cushenberry

Case Details

Full title:STATE OF LOUISIANA v. LEONARDO CUSHENBERRY

Court:SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA

Date published: Jan 22, 2020

Citations

287 So. 3d 713 (La. 2020)

Citing Cases

Cushenberry v. Vannoy

State Rec., Vol. 8 of 8, La. S.Ct. Writ Application, 19 KH 740, 4/26/19 (signed 4/24/19).State v.…