The opinion
PER CURIAM.
| denied. Relator fails to show he received ineffective assistance of counsel under the standard of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). Furthermore, his complaint regarding his- habitual offender adjudication is not cognizable oh collateral review. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.3; State ex rel. Melinie v. State, 93-1380 (La.1/12/96), 665 So.2d 1172 ; State v. Cotton, 09-2397 (La.10/15/10), 45 So.3d 1030 ; State v. Thomas, 08-2912 (La.10/16/09), 19 So.3d 466 .
Relator has now fully litigated his application' for post-conviction relief in state court. Similar to federal habeas relief, see 28 U.S.C. § 2244 -,' Louisiana post-conviction procedure envisions the -filing of a second or successive application only under the narrow circumstances provided in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4 and within the limitations period as set out in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8. Notably, the Legislature in 2013 La. Acts 251 amended La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4 to make the procedural bars against *958 successive filings mandatory. Relator’s claims have now been fully litigated in state collateral proceedings in accord with La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.6, and this denial is final. Hereafter, unless relator can show that one of the narrow exceptions authorizing the filing of a successive application applies, relator has exhausted his right to state collateral review.