Summary
The Louisiana Supreme Court denied relator Nicholas Johnson’s application for post-conviction relief as untimely and held that his sentencing claim was not cognizable on collateral review. The court explained that successive applications are subject to narrow statutory exceptions and concluded that Johnson had exhausted his state collateral-review rights absent a showing that an exception applied. The court attached and adopted the district court’s ruling denying Johnson’s motion for concurrent sentences.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Johnson's post-conviction application was barred as untimely under Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure article 930.8.
- Whether Johnson's sentencing claim was cognizable on collateral review.
- Whether Johnson had exhausted his right to state collateral review after fully litigating at least two post-conviction applications, absent a statutory exception for a successive application.
Holdings
- The application was untimely in the district court, and Johnson failed to carry his burden of showing that an exception to the limitations period applied.
- Johnson's sentencing claim was not cognizable on collateral review.
- After fully litigating at least two state post-conviction applications, Johnson exhausted his right to state collateral review unless he could establish one of the narrow statutory exceptions authorizing a successive application.
Key quotations
“Denied. The application was not timely filed in the district court, and relator fails to carry his burden to show that an exception applies.” (202 So. 3d at 493)
“Hereafter, unless he can show that one of the narrow exceptions authorizing the filing of a successive application applies, relator has exhausted his right to state collateral review.” (202 So. 3d at 493-94)
Factual background
On March 1, 2010, Nicholas Johnson pleaded guilty to aggravated criminal damage to property and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. He received agreed-upon consecutive fifteen-year hard-labor sentences without benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence. After beginning to serve the sentences, he sought concurrent sentences, but the district court denied the motion because it was untimely and the court lacked authority to amend the sentence under Louisiana law.
Procedural history
Johnson pleaded guilty in the First Judicial District Court for Caddo Parish to aggravated criminal damage to property and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and received consecutive fifteen-year sentences. The district court denied his motion for concurrent sentences, reasoning that the motion was untimely and that the court lacked authority to amend a hard-labor sentence after execution had begun. After Johnson litigated at least two state post-conviction applications, the Louisiana Supreme Court denied the application as untimely, found no applicable exception, held that the sentencing claim was not cognizable on collateral review, and ordered the district court to record a consistent minute entry.
Remand instructions
The district court was ordered to record a minute entry consistent with the per curiam denial.