State v. Brumfield

Decision Date02 September 2009
Docket NumberNo. 2009-KP-1084.,2009-KP-1084.
Citation16 So.3d 1161
PartiesSTATE of Louisiana v. Sherrod BRUMFIELD.
CourtLouisiana Supreme Court

PER CURIAM.1

Granted. The stay previously ordered by this Court is vacated, the judgment of the district court granting respondent, Sherrod Brumfield, post-conviction relief is reversed, and respondent's convictions and habitual offender sentence are reinstated.

The record reveals that in June, 2007, the trial court purported to grant respondent an additional two years in which to file for post-conviction relief because the court had inadvertently failed to comply with La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8(C) by advising respondent of the time limits imposed by La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8(A) when it accepted his guilty pleas and sentenced him in 1999. Respondent then filed his present application in June, 2008, asserting various claims including one, upon which the court granted relief, alleging that his trial attorney labored under a conflict of interest. However, we have held that the notice provision of La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8(C) "is supplicatory language and does not bestow an enforceable right upon an individual defendant." State ex rel. Glover v. State, 93-2330, p. 21 (La.9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189, 1201. Thus, "while the legislature intended to notify defendants of Art. 930.8's limitations period, the legislature's broader aim was to limit the limitations period for a applications for post conviction relief ... unless certain specific exceptions apply and not to create a remedy for a trial court's failure to inform the defendant of the limitations period." Id. We also made clear in Glover that in cases in which the trial court addresses an otherwise time-barred application on the merits, an appellate court may assert the time limits imposed by art. 930.8(A) as a basis for denying relief in accord with clearly expressed legislative intent to limit collateral attacks on final convictions. Glover, 93-2330 at 22, 660 So.2d at 1201-02.

Respondent's conflict-of-interest claim, based on facts known to him at the time he entered his guilty pleas, does not otherwise fall within any of the exceptions to the time limit enumerated in art. 930.8(A) and is therefore time barred as a matter of La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8(A).

1. Judge Benjamin Jones, of the Fourth Judicial District Court, assigned as Justice Pro Tempore, participating in the decision.

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 cases
  • State v. Gage
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US
    • April 10, 2013
    ...relief, is supplicatory language which does not bestow an enforceable right on an individual defendant. State v. Brumfield, 09–1084 (La.9/2/09), 16 So.3d 1161;State v. Hunter, 36,692 (La.App.2d Cir.12/20/02), 834 So.2d 6. The trial court should have advised Defendant, and we now advise him ......
  • State v. Allen
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US
    • November 20, 2013
    ... ... However, La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8(C) is supplicatory language that does not bestow an enforceable right in favor of an individual defendant. State v. Brumfield, 2009–1084, pp. 1–2 (La.9/2/09), 16 So.3d 1161, 1162; see also State v. Reel, 2010–1737, pp. 14–15 (La.App. 4 Cir. 10/3/12), 126 So.3d 506, 517, 2012 WL 4711881, writ denied, 2012–2433 (La.4/12/13), 111 So.3d 1018 (The failure of a trial court to inform the defendant of the time period ... ...
  • Miller v. McCain
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Louisiana
    • January 23, 2019
    ...23. R. Doc. 18 at 6. 24. State Rec., Vol. 1 of 2, La. App. 5th Cir. Case No. 17-KH-75 Order, 3/20/17 (citing State v. Brumfield, 09-1084 (La. 9/02/09), 16 So.3d 1161, 1162). 25. State Rec., Vol. 1 of 2, Plea of Guilty and Waiver of Rights, Plea of Guilty and Waiver of Rights as a Multiple O......
  • State v. Greenup
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US
    • May 30, 2023
    ... ... defendant of the APCR time limitation, is merely a directive ... to trial courts, the violation of which does not bestow an ... enforceable right on an individual defendant. Id. at ... 1201; State v. Brumfield, 09-1084 (La. 9/2/09), 16 ... So.3d 1161 (concluding that the trial court's failure to ... provide the advisal required by La. C.Cr.P. art. 930.8(C) did ... not entitle the defendant to additional time to file an ... APCR). This Court has further recognized that the ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT