Summary
The Louisiana Supreme Court denied Cesar Roca's application for post-conviction relief as untimely under La. Code Crim. Proc. art. 930.8 and held that he failed to establish an exception to the limitations period. The court also noted that Roca had fully litigated three state post-conviction applications and incorporated the district court's reasons, which found his claims procedurally barred and unpersuasive on the merits.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether relator's successive application for state post-conviction relief was timely under Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure article 930.8.
- Whether relator established an exception to the limitations period based on allegedly newly discovered evidence.
- Whether relator had exhausted his right to state collateral review after fully litigating three state post-conviction applications.
Holdings
- The application was untimely, and relator failed to carry his burden of showing that an exception to the limitations period applied.
- Louisiana post-conviction procedure permits a successive application only under the narrow circumstances authorized by articles 930.4 and 930.8.
Key quotations
“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.” (501)
Factual background
Relator challenged convictions for two counts of aggravated rape, aggravated oral sexual battery on a juvenile, and molestation of a juvenile. He claimed that newly obtained videos or DVDs had been withheld from the defense and contained exculpatory evidence, and he argued that the aggravated-rape charges required proof that the perpetrator was armed with a dangerous weapon. He did not allege when he obtained the recordings or show diligence in attempting to discover them during the many years after his convictions.
Procedural history
Relator's 2002 convictions and sentences were affirmed on direct appeal, and writs were denied. An earlier state post-conviction application and a federal habeas petition were also denied. The Twenty-Fourth Judicial District Court denied relator's second state post-conviction application as time barred and unpersuasive on the merits; the Louisiana Supreme Court denied the application 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.