Opinion
No. 2020-KP-00811
02-24-2023
STATE of Louisiana v. Ryan Michael POURCIAU
Writ application denied. See per curiam.
Genovese, J., would grant in part for the reasons assigned in State v. Reddick, 2021-01893 (La. 10/21/22), 351 So.3d. 273.
Griffin, J., would grant. See State v. Reddick, 2021-01893 (La. 10/21/22), 351 So.3d. 273. ( Griffin, J. dissenting).
PER CURIAM:
Denied. Applicant fails to show that 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). Applicant also fails to show that the state withheld material exculpatory evidence in violation of Brady v. Maryland , 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963). Applicant's excessive sentence claim is not cognizable on collateral review. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.3 ; State ex rel. Melinie v. State , 93-1380 (La. 1/12/96), 665 So.2d 1172. As to his remaining claims, applicant fails to satisfy his post-conviction burden of proof. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.2. See also State v. Reddick , 2021-01893 (La. 10/21/22), 351 So.3d 273.
Applicant 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. 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.