
    STATE EX REL. Trivensky ODOM v. STATE of Louisiana
    No. 16-KH-0875
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    11/02/2016
   PER CURIAM:

| (Writ granted in part; case remanded. The District Court is ordered to conduct an evidentiary hearing limited to the issue of whether relator is entitled to a new trial based on the victim’s recantation. See Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 92 S.Ct. 763, 31 L.Ed.2d 104 (1972); Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264, 79 S.Ct. 1173, 3 L.Ed.2d 1217 (1959); see also State v. Pierre, 13-0873 (La. 10/15/13), 125 So.3d 403; State v. Conway, 01-2808 (La. 4/12/02), 816 So.2d 290. Relator’s remaining claims are untimely, see La.C.Cr.P. Art. 930.8; State ex rel. Glover v. State, 93-2330 (La. 9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189, and in all other respects, the application is denied.

CLARK, J., dissents and would deny.

CRICHTON, J., dissents and assigns reasons.

CLARK, J.,

dissenting.

Ill would deny.

CRICHTON, J.,

dissents and assigns reasons:

Jjl respectfully dissent. I would deny Trivenskey Odom’s writ application as I do not believe that his claims, as presented, warrant an evidentiary hearing. La. C.Cr.P. Art. 930.2; see State v. Pierre, 13-0873 (La. 10/15/13), 125 So.3d 403; State v. Conway, 01-2808 (La. 4/12/02), 816 So.2d 290. Odom’s remaining claims are untimely. La. C.Cr.P. Art. 930.8; State ex rel. Glover v. State, 93-2330 (La. 9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189. Further, I would deem Odom’s claims fully litigated in these state collateral proceedings in accord with La. C.Cr.P. Art. 930.6 and thus final.  