State ex rel. Williams v. State, 195 So. 3d 433

Deairen Williams was convicted by jury of two armed robberies and one attempted armed robbery; sentences: 50 years each for armed robberies and 25 years for attempted armed robbery. Convictions and sentences were affirmed on direct appeal.
Williams filed a timely application for post-conviction relief raising ineffective-assistance claims: failure to investigate/subpoena evidence (including DNA and 911 tapes), failure to present actual-innocence defense, failure to move to sever counts, failure to move to reconsider sentence for inadequate articulation under La. C.Cr.P. art. 894.1, and a request for an evidentiary hearing.
The State responded on the merits and raised no procedural objections. The district court conducted a merits review under the Strickland standard and Louisiana law on post-conviction burdens.
The court found no DNA testing had been taken, the jury considered identifications (some non‑positive) and the Fifth Circuit previously upheld sufficiency of evidence tying Williams to the crimes.
The court rejected free-standing actual-innocence claims absent new, conclusive non‑DNA evidence and found Williams failed to show deficient performance or prejudice on the asserted Strickland claims.
The court denied an evidentiary hearing and ordered the district court clerk to record a minute entry consistent with a per curiam denying relief; the Louisiana procedural bars for successive post-conviction applications were noted as final and mandatory.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Ineffective assistance — failure to investigate/subpoena evidence (DNA, 911 tapes)	Williams: counsel failed to subpoena DNA and 911 tapes; such evidence would have led to acquittal	State: record shows no DNA was taken; jury considered identifications; appellate court found sufficient evidence	Denied — Williams failed to prove deficient performance or prejudice
Free‑standing actual innocence	Williams: counsel failed to present defense of actual innocence; he is actually innocent	State: free‑standing actual‑innocence claims (non‑DNA) are not cognizable unless extraordinary new evidence exists	Denied — claim not legally cognizable absent new, conclusive evidence
Failure to move to sever counts	Williams: counsel failed to file pretrial severance motion, causing prejudice from joinder	State: joinder permissible for similar offenses occurring together; severance motion might be futile; tactical choice	Denied — joinder proper and choice of motions was reasonable trial strategy
Failure to move to reconsider sentence / articulate reasons under art. 894.1	Williams: counsel should have sought reconsideration because judge failed to articulate sentence basis	State: sentence was within legal range (minimum ~49.5 years); court did articulate seriousness and aggravating facts	Denied — no reasonable probability of a lesser sentence; no prejudice shown

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (establishes two‑prong ineffective assistance standard: deficient performance and prejudice)
Herrera v. Collins, 506 U.S. 390 (1993) (discusses limits on free‑standing claims of actual innocence)
State v. Washington, 491 So.2d 1337 (La. 1986) (Louisiana recognition of Strickland principles)
State v. Legrand, 864 So.2d 89 (La. 2003) (articulating Strickland framework in Louisiana)
State v. Pierre, 125 So.3d 403 (La. 2013) (rejecting free‑standing post‑conviction actual‑innocence claims absent extraordinary new evidence)
State v. Williams, 119 So.3d 228 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2013) (appellate decision affirming convictions and evidentiary sufficiency)
State v. Soler, 636 So.2d 1069 (La. App. 6 Cir. 1994) (discussing deference to trial counsel’s strategic choices)
State v. Pendelton, 696 So.2d 144 (La. App. 5 Cir. 1997) (noting counsel is not required to pursue futile motions)