Opinion
No. 94-KH-2974, No. 95-KK-1187
January 26, 1996
IN RE: Medford, Thomas; — Plaintiff(s); Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writ; Parish of Jefferson 24th Judicial District Court Div. "B" Number 84-2705; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, Number 94-KH-0874.
IN RE: Arabie, Shelby J.; — Plaintiff(s); Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs; Parish of East Baton Rouge 19th Judicial District Court Div. "E" Number 8-85-314, 10-84-148; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Number KW95 0063.
Granted in part with order. See per curiam.
HTL
PFC
WFM
JCW
CDK
BJJ
JPV
Writ granted in part; denied in part; case remanded. Relator alleges that one of his constitutional claims (that the state suppressed material exculpatory evidence at trial in violation of the principles set our in Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) and its progeny), denied by the trial court as untimely, rests on facts not known to him or his attorney and which did not become known to him until he obtained documents pursuant to the Public Records Act, La.Rev.Stat. 44:1 et seq. Relator therefore appears tot have raised a claim which falls under La. Code Crim.Proc. art. 930- 8(1), that provides an exception to the three-year time limit for filing applications for post-conviction relief.
Accordingly, the district court is ordered to determine if the relator's claim based on the facts not known both "allege[s] a claim which, if established, would entitled [relator] to relief" under La. Code Crim.Proc. art. 928 and also raises factual or legal issues which cannot "be resolved based upon the application and answer and supporting documents" under La. Code Crim.Proc. art. 929. If relator's claim based on facts not known meets the threshold tests set out in Article 928 and Article 929, the district court must hold a hearing pursuant to La. Code Crim.Proc. art. 930.8A(1) and B at which it will determine (1) whether relator has proved, or the state concedes, that his Brady claim rests on facts not disclosed to him or his attorney; and (2) if so, whether the state has been prejudiced in its "ability to respond to, negate, or rebut the allegations of the petition . . . by events not under the control of the state which have transpired since the date of [relator's] original conviction . . . ." In this context, the withholding of exculpatory evidence under certain circumstances may constitute an event" under the control of the state" for purposes of La. Code Crim.Proc. art. 930.8B.
If the state does not show prejudice from the delay, the court must proceed to an adjudication on the merits of relator'sBrady claim.
In all other respects, the application is denied.