
    STATE EX REL. Tyrone LARTIGUE, Jr. v. STATE of Louisiana
    No. 2016-KH-0503
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    8/04/2017
   ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF LAFAYETTE

PER CURIAM:

| denied. Relator does not identify an illegal term in his sentence, and-therefore, his filing is properly construed as an application for post-conviction relief. See State v. Parker, 98-0266 (La. 5/8/98), 711 So.2d 694. As such, it is subject to the time limitation set forth in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8. Relator’s application was not' timely filed in the district court, and he fails to carry his burden to show that an exception applies. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8; State ex rel. Glover v. State, 93-2330 (La. 9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189. The application is also repetitive. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4. See State ex rel. Lartigue v. State, 13-2810 (La. 9/12/14), 147 So.3d 180.

Relator has now fully litigated his application for post-conviction relief in state court. Similar to federal habeas relief, see 28 U.S.C. § 2244, Louisiana post-convietion procedure envisions the filing of a second or successive application only under the narrow circumstances provided-in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4 and within the limitations 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 denial is final. 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. The district court is ordered to record a minute entry consistent with this per curiam.  