From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Lanieu

Supreme Court of Louisiana
Oct 1, 2004
885 So. 2d 512 (La. 2004)

Opinion

No. 2003-KP-2640.

October 1, 2004.

In re Lanieu, Clemon W.; — Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of W. Baton Rouge, 18th Judicial District Court, Div. C, No. 952,637; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2003 KW 1059.


Writ granted in part; otherwise denied; case remanded to the district court. Relator filed an application for post-conviction relief containing a claim predicated on facts not known to him or his attorney at trial, and accordingly satisfied the criteria of La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8(A)(1) for an exception to the prescriptive period. The fact that relator discovered the new facts before the prescriptive period had run but did not file until after it had run does not make his application untimely. Instead, if delays caused by matters outside the control of the state have prejudiced the state, it may invoke La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8(B) and demand a hearing on that issue. If the state demonstrates prejudice under that article, the district court shall dismiss the application. If it does not, the district court shall consider the claim on the merits. See generally Carlin v. Cain, 97-2390 (La. 3/13/98), 706 So.2d 968.

TRAYLOR and KNOLL, JJ., would deny the writ application.


Summaries of

State v. Lanieu

Supreme Court of Louisiana
Oct 1, 2004
885 So. 2d 512 (La. 2004)
Case details for

State v. Lanieu

Case Details

Full title:STATE of Louisiana v. Clemone W. LANIEU

Court:Supreme Court of Louisiana

Date published: Oct 1, 2004

Citations

885 So. 2d 512 (La. 2004)

Citing Cases

State ex Rel. Walker v. State

Relator's discovery of arguably suppressed evidence allows his untimely filing without regard to his…

Guidry v. Haney

La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8(A)(1). State v. Lanieu, 885 So.2d 512 (La. 5/1/04[10/1/04]). So too, "even if…