In Melinie, the Louisiana Supreme Court, relying on Article 930.3, ruled that claims of errors in sentencing which should be raised on direct appeal were not proper grounds for post-conviction relief. The court's holding in Cotton expanded the bars under La. Code Crim. P. art. 930.3 and Melinie to claims challenging the performance of counsel at multiple offender proceedings.Summary of this case from Reavis v. Hedgeman
January 12, 1996.
We grant the application in order to rule definitively on the issue of whether a person may raise the question of excessiveness of sentence in a post-conviction application. La. Code Crim.Proc. art. 930.3, which sets out the exclusive grounds for granting post-conviction relief, provides no basis for review of claims of excessiveness or other sentencing error post-conviction. See State v. Gibbs, 620 So.2d 296 (La.App. 3d Cir. 1993); cf. State ex rel. Glover v. State, 93-2330, p. 7, 11-14 (La. 9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189, 1194, 1196-98. Accordingly, relator's claim for post-conviction relief based on the excessiveness of his sentence is denied.