11 Dеnied. Relator fails to show the state withheld material exculpatory evidеnce in violation of Brady v. Maryland,
Relatоr has now fully litigated his third 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 apрlication only under the narrow circumstances provided in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4 and within the limitаtions 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. Relator’s claims have now- been fully litigated in accord with La.C.Cr.P, art. 930.6, and this dеnial is final. The District Court is ordered to record a minute entry consistent with this per сuriam,
^ATTACHMENT
ORDER DISMISSING APPLICATION FOB. POST-CONVICTION RELIEF '
Petitioner’s previous application for post-conviction relief was based upon the holding of (he United States Supreme Court in Ictfler v. Cooper.
petitioner's most recent Application for Post-Conviсtion Relief a&ing'out of his September 19, 1990, conviction was not filed within the tune prescribed by Louisiana'Code of Criminal Procedure article 930.8. Petitioner seеks to avoid the dismissal of his claim by presenting "newly discovered evidence” tо die court whioh he contends he did not previously have access to due to circumstances beyond his control as outlined in his Statement of the Case and which he urges this Court to consider in tire interest of justice. The court has thoroughly reviewed the record including the trial transcripts, and the affidavits and criminal rеcord of the victim which arapurportedly the newly discovered evidence. Specifically, the court notes the May 21,2014, affidavit of David Ward, in which he аttests that “I told (Sap) Raynord Smith, that Bush Parker, would sell him a 39. Snub Nose Pistol,” 'T returned to New Orleans, that night unaware of what Sap needed the gun for. or who,” and “Carl didn’t know Saр, had a gun but X did, because 1 knew that Bush Parker'had sold it to him” contradicts hjs recordеd statement given to Slidell Police Detective John Emery on February 22,1990, wherein hе stateshe did not know, the victim or his name. The court flatter finds the other affidavits of "newly discovered evidence” rife with hearsay and speculation, all оf which was irrelevant to the trial of this matter and none of which justifies this court in finding an еxception to the time limitations of Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedurе article 930. S.'
Petitions? filed a Supplemental Application for Post-Conviction Relief contending that the stats violated Ms right to confront Ms accusers by intrоducing out of court statements by David Ward without presenting Ward as a witness subject to cross-examination. In addition to the untimeliness of these pleadings, the allеgation is completely unsubstantiated by the record and the trial transcripts. Aсcordingly, die court finds the Supplemental Application for Post-Convictiоn Relief likewise untimely, repetitive and without merit,
Therefore, after considеring the Application for Post-Conviction Relief, the Supplemental Application for Post-Conviction Relief and memoranda and exhibits in support thеreof, the !aw and jurisprudence, as well as the entire record including the entire trial transcript,
IT IS ORDERED that the Application far Post-Conviction Relief filed by Carl Barras be dismissed. Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure Articles 930.4 and 930.8.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clеrk of Court of the Parish of St. Tammany give notice of this dismissal to petitioner, the District Attorney for the Parish of St. Tammany, and the petitioner's custodian,
[[Image here]]
[[Image here]]
Notes
State of Lousiana v. Carl Barras, Number 2013 KW 0275.
State ex. Rel. Carl Barras v. Carl Barras, No, 2013-KH-1015.