State ex rel. Barras v. State, 193 So. 3d 126

Carl Barras filed a third state post-conviction application challenging his 1990 conviction, alleging Brady violations and presenting purported newly discovered evidence and confrontation-clause complaints.
The State and courts treated the filing as successive and untimely under La. Code Crim. P. arts. 930.4 and 930.8, as amended in 2013 making procedural bars mandatory.
Barras submitted affidavits (notably David Ward’s May 21, 2014 affidavit) and a supplemental submission claiming the prosecution introduced out-of-court statements without presenting Ward for cross-examination.
The district court reviewed the trial record, transcripts, affidavits, and exhibits and found the new affidavits largely hearsay, speculative, and irrelevant to trial issues.
The court concluded Barras’s pleadings were untimely, repetitive, and failed to establish an exception to the statutory time/successive-filing bars; it dismissed the application.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the State violated Brady by withholding material exculpatory evidence	Barras: State withheld exculpatory evidence (new affidavits and records) that would undermine conviction	State: No material exculpatory evidence was withheld; submitted materials are hearsay/irrelevant	Denied — relator failed to show a Brady violation
Whether the successive/untimely post-conviction application should be allowed under La. Code Crim. P. arts. 930.4/930.8	Barras: New evidence and circumstances beyond his control justify exception to time bar	State: 2013 amendments make bars mandatory; Barras’s claims are successive/untimely	Dismissed as untimely and successive; procedural bars apply
Whether affidavits offered qualify as newly discovered evidence to overcome time limits	Barras: Affidavits (e.g., Ward) contradict prior statements and constitute newly discovered evidence	State: Affidavits are hearsay, speculative, irrelevant to trial issues	Court found affidavits insufficient to meet newly discovered evidence exception
Whether admission of out-of-court statements violated confrontation rights	Barras: Introduction of Ward’s out-of-court statements deprived him of confrontation	State: Record and transcripts do not support the claim; pleadings untimely	Supplemental claim unsubstantiated on the record and dismissed

Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecution’s duty to disclose material exculpatory evidence)
State ex rel. Glover v. State, 660 So.2d 1189 (La. 1995) (application of Louisiana procedural bars to post-conviction relief)