From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Caruso

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
Sep 16, 2016
No. 15-KP-2057 (La. Sep. 16, 2016)

Opinion

No. 15-KP-2057

09-16-2016

STATE OF LOUISIANA v. DENNIS RAY CARUSO, JR.


ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE TWENTY-FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF LIVINGSTON :

Denied. Relator fails to show 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) or that the district court erred when it denied his claims summarily without conducting an evidentiary hearing. La.C.Cr.P. art. 929(A). We attach hereto and make a part hereof the District Court's written reasons denying relator's application.

Relator 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 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. Relator'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, relator has exhausted his right to state collateral review. The District Court is ordered to record a minute entry consistent with this per curiam.

Image materials not available for display.


Summaries of

State v. Caruso

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
Sep 16, 2016
No. 15-KP-2057 (La. Sep. 16, 2016)
Case details for

State v. Caruso

Case Details

Full title:STATE OF LOUISIANA v. DENNIS RAY CARUSO, JR.

Court:SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA

Date published: Sep 16, 2016

Citations

No. 15-KP-2057 (La. Sep. 16, 2016)