Opinion
24-KH-384
08-22-2024
SHEDRICK GIVENS v. TIM HOOPER, WARDEN IN RE SHEDRICK GIVENS
APPLYING FOR SUPERVISORY WRIT FROM THE TWENTY-FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF LOUISIANA, DIRECTED TO THE HONORABLE R. CHRISTOPHER COX, III, DIVISION "B", NUMBER 95-2188
Panel composed of Judges Jude G. Gravois, John J. Molaison, Jr., and Timothy S. Marcel
WRIT DENIED
In June of 1996, the relator was found guilty of second-degree murder by a jury. He was thereafter sentenced to life imprisonment at hard labor without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence. On appeal, this Court affirmed relator's conviction and sentence, and the Louisiana Supreme Court denied his writ application. State v. Givens, 97-17 (La.App. 5 Cir. 10/15/97), 701 So.2d 1042, writ denied, 97-2893 (La. 3/27/98), 716 So.2d 884. Since that time, the relator filed numerous applications for post-conviction relief ("APCR"), and the Louisiana Supreme Court ruled in 2018 that the relator has exhausted his right to state collateral review. State ex rel. Givens v. State, 17-0238 (La. 4/20/18), 240 So.3d 916.
In the relator's most recent APCR filing, he asserted that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over his criminal trial on the grounds of double jeopardy and the absence of a grand jury indictment. The trial court denied the APCR as being time barred, repetitive, and successive. As to the merits of the claims, the court found that the relator had not carried his burden of proof under La. C.Cr.P. art. 930.2. In the instant writ application, the relator contends that the trial court erred in denying his APCR as time barred, repetitive, successive, and without merit.
As correctly noted by the trial court, the relator originally raised the issue of double jeopardy on appeal and his argument was found to be without merit by both this Court and the Louisiana Supreme Court. Similarly, the relator's claim about the trial court's subject matter jurisdiction based on the amendment of charges by the State has also previously been addressed and denied by this Court and the supreme court in prior writ applications. See, Givens v. State, 10-103 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2/8/10), writ denied, State ex rel. Givens v. State, 11-1999 (La. 5/4/12), 88 So.3d 460; Givens v. State, 19-605 (La.App. 5 Cir. 1/3/20), unpublished disposition, writ denied, Givens v. State through Att'y Gen.'s Off., 20-268 (La. 10/6/20), 302 So.3d 514. Thus, the claims in the relator's most recent APCR are repetitive under La. C.Cr.P. art. 930.4. In addition, the application was not timely filed in the district court, and relator fails to carry his burden to show that an exception applies. La. C.Cr.P. art. 930.8; State ex rel. Glover v. State, 93-2330 (La. 9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189. On the showing made, the relator's writ application is denied.
JJM
JGG
TSM