The opinion
STATE OF LOUISIANA * NO. 2022-K-0187
VERSUS *
COURT OF APPEAL
SHERMAN HAMPTON *
FOURTH CIRCUIT
*
STATE OF LOUISIANA
*******
APPLICATION FOR WRITS DIRECTED TO
CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT ORLEANS PARISH
NO. 519-042, SECTION “F”
Honorable Robin D. Pittman, Judge
******
Judge Paula A. Brown
******
(Court composed of Chief Judge Terri F. Love, Judge Sandra Cabrina Jenkins,
Judge Paula A. Brown)
Sherman Hampton #90147
Louisiana State Penitentiary
Main Prison/Pine-2
Angola, LA 70712
PRO-SE/RELATOR
Jason Rogers Williams
District Attorney
G. Benjamin Cohen
Chief of Appeals
Orleans Parish District Attorney’s Office
619 S. White St.
New Orleans, LA 70119
COUNSEL FOR STATE OF LOUISIANA/RESPONDENT
WRIT GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED
APRIL 6, 2022
PAB
TFL
SCJ
Relator, Sherman Hampton, seeks supervisory review of the district court’s
February 1, 2022 judgment, which denied his application for post-conviction relief.
For the reasons that follow, we grant relator’s writ application, but deny relief.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On February 14, 2019, a jury unanimously found Relator guilty on two
counts of first-degree rape. A non-unanimous jury convicted Relator of one count
of first-degree rape and one count of simple rape. On July 1, 2020, this Court
affirmed the unanimous jury convictions and vacated the convictions rendered by a
non-unanimous jury in accord with Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U.S. ___, 140 S.Ct.
1390, 206 L.Ed.2d 583 (2020). State v. Hampton, 19-0682 (La. App. 4 Cir.
7/1/20), 302 So.3d 544. The Supreme Court denied writs on December 22, 2020.
State v. Hampton, 20-01210 (La. 12/22/20), 307 So.3d 1045. On January 4, 2022,
Relator filed an application for post-conviction relief. The district court rendered
judgment, with accompanying reasons for judgment, on Relator’s application for
post-conviction relief on February 1, 2022. The district court first noted that
1
Relator’s application appeared untimely. However, out of an abundance of
caution, the district court considered Relator’s motion on the merits and found his
allegations to be meritless.
This writ application followed.
DISCUSSION
Relator argues that the district court erred on two grounds: (1) in finding that
Relator’s application for post-conviction relief was time barred pursuant to La.
C.Cr.P art. 930.8 and (2) in not finding that trial counsel was ineffective for his
failure to hire an expert to test the DNA results.
Timeliness
Relator argues that his application for post-conviction relief was timely filed
on December 22, 2021. In support of his claim, Relator attaches a copy of his
“Offender’s Request for Legal/Indigent Mail” dated December 22, 2021, which
indicated that his application for post-conviction relief and memorandum brief
were attached and mailed to the Clerk of Criminal District Court and the District
Attorney’s Office.
Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure Article 930.8 provides, in pertinent
part, that “[n]o application for post[-]conviction relief, including applications
which seek an out-of-time appeal, shall be considered if it is filed more than two
years after the judgment of conviction and sentence has become final under the
provisions of Article 914 or 922 . . . .” Pursuant to La. C.Cr.P. art. 922, “[i]f an
application for a writ of review is timely filed with the [S]upreme [C]ourt, the
2
judgment of the appellate court from which the writ of review is sought becomes
final when the [S]upreme [C]ourt denies the writ.”
In the case sub judice, Relator’s conviction became final when the Supreme
Court denied his writ application on December 20, 2020. On January 4, 2022, less
than two years after his conviction became final, Relator’s application for post-
conviction relief was filed in the district court. Accordingly, we find Relator’s
application for post-conviction relief was timely filed.
Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
Relator argues that the DNA evidence admitted during his trial was
contaminated by the floodwaters from Hurricane Katrina, and his counsel’s failure
to hire an expert to test the DNA was tantamount to ineffective assistance of
counsel. We disagree.
As set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in Strickland v. Washington, 466
U.S. 668 (1984), in order to grant post-conviction relief on the basis of ineffective
assistance of counsel, Relator must satisfy a two-pronged test: (1) that counsel’s
performance was deficient and (2) Relator was prejudiced by the deficiency. It is
well settled that general and conclusory allegations are insufficient to support a
claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. State ex rel. Byrd v. State, 16-0574, p. 4
(La. 8/4/17), 223 So.3d 1150, 1151 (where the Supreme Court, adopting the district
court’s written reasons for denying relief, found that “[g]eneral statements and
conclusory allegations will not suffice to prove a claim of ineffective assistance of
counsel.”); see also State v. Stallworth, 08-1389, p. 8 (La. App. 4 Cir. 4/29/09), 11
3
So. 3d 541, 546, writ denied, 09-1186 (La. 1/29/10), 25 So. 3d 829 (where this
Court found that the defendant’s “general assertion that his trial counsel was
unprepared is insufficient to satisfy the two-pronged Strickland test for establishing
ineffective assistance of counsel.”).
After review of the record, we agree with the district court that there is no
factual support for Relator’s claims that the DNA evidence was compromised by
the improper storage of evidence nor that his counsel was ineffective for failing to
challenge the evidence on that basis. Relator did not provide any specific facts or
evidence to prove that his counsel’s failure to hire an expert to test the DNA
evidence was deficient nor did he provide any evidence that he was prejudiced by
this omission.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, we grant Relator’s writ application and deny the
requested relief.
WRIT GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED
4