Summary
In State v. Sampson, 02-909 (La. 2/14/03), 841 So.2d 747, the Louisiana Supreme Court found that regardless of the words used in its order, a district court can act within its discretion when it in effect orders supplementation of a timely-filed application for post-conviction relief, even if the supplementation does not arrive until after the expiration of the prescriptive period.
Summary of this case from State v. MosesOpinion
No. 02-KP-0909
February 14, 2003.
IN RE: Sampson, Merald; — Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. L, Nos. 94-0910; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 02 KH 44.
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE FIFTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEAL.
Granted with order. See per curiam.
JTK
CDK
BJJ
JPV
JLW
CALOGERO, C.J., recused.
Writ granted; court of appeal order reversed; case remanded. Whatever the words used in its order, the district court was acting within its discretion when it in effect ordered supplementation of the timely-filed application for post-conviction relief, even if the supplementation were not to arrive until after the expiration of the prescriptive period. State ex rel. Duhon v. Whitley, 92-1740 (La. 9/2/94), 642 So.2d 1273; cf. Muntz v. Lensing, 96-0230 (La. 3/8/96), 668 So.2d 1147. Accordingly, the court of appeal order finding the application time-barred is reversed and the case is remanded to the district court for further proceedings consistent with its order of December 13, 2001.