Opinion
No.2019-KH-02058
12-08-2020
STATE of Louisiana v. Jan PORRETTO
Writ application denied. See per curiam.
Johnson, C.J., would grant and assigns reasons.
Weimer, J., would grant and assigns reasons.
Hughes, J., would grant and assigns reasons.
PER CURIAM:
Denied. Applicant shows no lower court error.
Applicant has now fully litigated multiple 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. 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.
Johnson, C.J., would grant and remand for an evidentiary hearing.
WEIMER, J. , would grant to address the retroactivity of Ramos v. Louisiana , ––– U.S. ––––, 140 S.Ct. 1390, 206 L.Ed. 2d 583 (2020).
Hughes, J., dissenting.
I respectfully dissent and would grant and remand for an evidentiary hearing. Applicant presents testimony, under oath, from a police homicide detective and a former assistant district attorney which raises questions about the evidence in this case. If this is not enough to trigger an evidentiary hearing, the process becomes meaningless.