Art. 930.4. Repetitive applications

A. Unless required in the interest of justice, any claim for relief which was fully litigated in an appeal from the proceedings leading to the judgment of conviction and sentence shall not be considered.

NOTE: Paragraphs B-E eff. until Aug. 1, 2014. See Acts 2013, No. 251, §1.

B. If the application alleges a claim of which the petitioner had knowledge and inexcusably failed to raise in the proceedings leading to conviction, the court may deny relief.

C. If the application alleges a claim which the petitioner raised in the trial court and inexcusably failed to pursue on appeal, the court may deny relief.

D. A successive application may be dismissed if it fails to raise a new or different claim.

E. A successive application may be dismissed if it raises a new or different claim that was inexcusably omitted from a prior application.

NOTE: Paragraphs B-E as amended by Acts 2013, No. 251, §1, eff. Aug. 1, 2014.

B. If the application alleges a claim of which the petitioner had knowledge and inexcusably failed to raise in the proceedings leading to conviction, the court shall deny relief.

C. If the application alleges a claim which the petitioner raised in the trial court and inexcusably failed to pursue on appeal, the court shall deny relief.

D. A successive application shall be dismissed if it fails to raise a new or different claim.

E. A successive application shall be dismissed if it raises a new or different claim that was inexcusably omitted from a prior application.

F. If the court considers dismissing an application for failure of the petitioner to raise the claim in the proceedings leading to conviction, failure to urge the claim on appeal, or failure to include the claim in a prior application, the court shall order the petitioner to state reasons for his failure. If the court finds that the failure was excusable, it shall consider the merits of the claim.

Added by Acts 1980, No. 429, §1, eff. Jan. 1, 1981; Acts 2013, No. 251, §1, eff. Aug. 1, 2014.