State v. Brown, 202 So. 3d 585

Background

Torrey D. Brown was convicted by jury (Sept. 12, 2012) of two counts of battery on a police officer; sentences imposed Sept. 26, 2012; Brown timely sought appeal of those convictions.
After the appeal was lodged, the State filed a habitual-offender bill (Oct. 17, 2012); Brown was adjudicated a third felony offender and resentenced on March 21, 2013.
This Court affirmed Brown’s convictions and original sentences on Dec. 12, 2013, noting the habitual-offender adjudication was not before it because the appeal had been filed prior to that adjudication and that Brown would need an out-of-time appeal to challenge the habitual adjudication.
Brown filed an application for post-conviction relief seeking an out-of-time appeal challenging only the habitual-offender adjudication on Dec. 15, 2015; the trial court granted an out-of-time appeal on Jan. 5, 2016.
On appeal, the court held Brown’s application was untimely under La. C.Cr.P. art. 930.8 because the habitual adjudication became final April 20, 2013, and the two-year window expired April 20, 2015; Brown asserted no statutory exception.
Because the time limits are jurisdictional, the trial court lacked authority to grant an untimely out-of-time appeal; the appellate court dismissed Brown’s appeal.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Brown’s out-of-time appeal challenging habitual-offender adjudication was timely	Brown argued he should be allowed an out-of-time appeal (via post-conviction relief) to review the habitual adjudication	State argued Brown’s application was filed after the two-year post-conviction prescriptive period and no exceptions apply	The application was untimely; appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction
When the two-year prescription for post-conviction relief began for the habitual adjudication	State: prescription began when habitual adjudication became final (after sentence imposed)	Brown: implicitly argued relief was timely or entitled to reconsideration (but did not invoke statutory exceptions)	Prescription began April 20, 2013 (finality after sentencing); two-year period expired April 20, 2015
Whether the trial court could grant relief outside Article 930.8 time limits absent exceptions	State: trial court lacks jurisdiction to grant untimely applications unless an Article 930.8 exception is shown	Brown: did not assert any Article 930.8 exception	Trial court lacked jurisdiction to grant untimely out-of-time appeal; its grant was invalid
Whether the prior appeal's timing affected the starting point for the two-year period	Brown argued (by seeking out-of-time appeal) that his earlier appeal posture might toll or affect timing	State argued the two-year period for the habitual adjudication is independent and starts at finality of habitual adjudication	Court held the two-year period runs from finality of habitual adjudication/sentence, not from finality of the underlying conviction

Key Cases Cited

State v. Williams, 119 So.3d 228 (La. App. 5 Cir.) (timeliness required for direct appeals of habitual adjudication)
State v. Hollins, 726 So.2d 448 (La. App. 5 Cir.) (failure to file timely appeal renders conviction and sentence final)
State v. Counterman, 475 So.2d 336 (La.) (remedy for reinstatement of appeal rights via post-conviction relief)
State v. Gray, 902 So.2d 1060 (La. App. 5 Cir.) (outlines use of post-conviction relief for out-of-time appeals)
State v. Daigle, 593 So.2d 676 (La. App. 3 Cir.) (trial court lacks jurisdiction to grant untimely post-conviction relief absent statutory exceptions)
State v. Theard, 904 So.2d 681 (La.) (time limitations for post-conviction relief are jurisdictional)
State ex rel. Glover v. State, 660 So.2d 1189 (La.) (appellate courts may address untimeliness on their own motion)
State v. Quinn, 38 So.3d 1102 (La. App. 3 Cir.) (habitual-offender sentence imposition produces finality for purposes of appeal)
State v. Chapman, 471 So.2d 716 (La.) (a conviction is not final for appeal until sentence is imposed)