State v. Parker

711 So. 2d 694 · Supreme Court of Louisiana · Decided May 8, 1998

Download PDF

SummaryHoldingsLater treatmentOpinion of the Court

At a glance

Court
Supreme Court of Louisiana
Decided
May 8, 1998
Citations
711 So. 2d 694
Good-law status
Good LawGood law: 5 citing cases carry treatments with no negative treatment.
Cited by
1,263 opinions

Summary

The Louisiana Supreme Court granted the writ and reinstated Parker’s second-degree murder conviction and sentence. It held that his filing alleged trial error, not an illegal sentence, so the three-year post-conviction prescriptive period applied and his late realization of possible error did not qualify as discovery of a new fact. The court also concluded that the evidence amply supported the verdict and that counsel’s failure to object waived the jury-instruction and verdict-related claims.

Holdings

  • Whether the filing was a motion to correct an illegal sentence or an application for post-conviction relief, and whether it was timely.. Because Parker did not identify an illegal term in his sentence and instead alleged trial error, his filing was a post-conviction claim subject to the three-year prescriptive period. His late realization that error may have occurred was not discovery of a new fact under the statutory exception, so the application was untimely. 695
  • Whether the trial evidence supported the verdict.. Parker’s claim failed on the merits because the evidence adduced at trial more than amply supported the verdict. 695
  • Whether claims concerning the jury instructions, responsive verdict forms, or verdict remained available despite counsel’s failure to object.. Trial counsel’s failure to object to the jury instructions, responsive verdict forms, or verdict waived the claim. 695

Written by LawDiver's case analysis.

How later courts treated this case

  • Cited

    State ex rel. Darrol Bruce Brown v. State of Louisiana, 2016 La. LEXIS 1753. cited for the rule that an application not identifying an illegal term is treated as post‑conviction relief

  • Applied

    State ex rel. Johnnie Causey v. State of Louisiana, 237 So. 3d 508. Relator does not identify an illegal term in his sentence, and therefore his filing is properly construed as an application for post-conviction relief.

  • Applied

    State ex rel. Lloyd Ancar v. State of Louisiana, 2016 La. LEXIS 1823. Relator does not identify an illegal term in his sentence, and therefore, his filings are properly construed as applications for post‑conviction relief.

  • Applied

    State ex rel. Calvin Ashton Thomas v. State of Louisiana, 2016 La. LEXIS 1746. Court cites Parker for classifying the filing as post‑conviction relief

  • Applied

    State ex rel. Clarence Williams v. State of Louisiana, 2016 La. LEXIS 977. Williams’ filing does not point to an illegal term, so the Court treats it as a post‑conviction relief application per Parker

See all citing casesFilter by court, year and treatment in LawDiver. Free, no login.

In this case

Opinion of the Court

711 So.2d 694 (1998)

STATE of Louisiana
v.
Gerald PARKER.

No. 98-KP-0256.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 8, 1998.

PER CURIAM:[*]

Writ granted: conviction for second degree murder and sentence of life imprisonment at hard labor without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence for 40 *695 years reinstated. Because Parker's filing below did not point to a claimed illegal term in his sentence, he did not raise a claim cognizable in a motion to correct an illegal sentence. Instead, he raised a claim of trial error properly cognizable in an application for postconviction relief if at all. Accordingly, the "at any time" language of La.C.Cr.P. art. 882 does not apply to Parker's filing and the three-year prescriptive period of La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8 applies instead. See State ex rel. Stepter v. Whitley, 93-2346 (La.10/13/95), 661 So.2d 480. Further, because Parker's late realization that an error may have occurred at trial does not qualify as the discovery of a new fact for purposes of the exception set out in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8(A), cf. R.S. 14:17; La.C.C. art. 5, Parker's application arrived before the district court untimely.

In any event, because evidence adduced at trial more than amply supported the verdict returned, Parker's claim fails on the merits. State v. Dauzat, 392 So.2d 393, 396 (La.1980). Finally, trial counsel failed to object to jury instructions, responsive verdict forms, or verdict, and so waived any claim. State ex rel. Elaire v. Blackburn, 424 So.2d 246, 251-52 (La.1982).

CALOGERO, C.J., and LEMMON and JOHNSON, JJ., would grant and docket.

NOTES

[*] Kimball, J., not on panel. See Rule IV, Part II, Sec. 3.

Research the next case the same way

Everything on this page, for any of 10 million opinions.

  • Search every way lawyers do

    Citation, case name, boolean with /s and /p, or a plain-English question. Free, no login.

  • See what still holds

    Every case shows how later courts treated it: followed, distinguished, limited or overruled.

  • Check a brief before you file

    CiteCheck reads your brief and flags cites that don't exist, don't match, or aren't good law.

  • Use it where you work

    The LawDiver connector brings real caselaw into Claude, ChatGPT and Cursor. An API for builders.

Try CiteCheck free or create a free account for AI research and saved folders

Related landmark cases

All landmark cases·Browse by topic