Provides relative to post conviction relief (EN INCREASE GF EX See Note)
HB 675 revises Louisiana’s post-conviction relief procedures, which are the rules governing how convicted defendants can challenge the legality of their confinement after conviction and sentence are final. The bill adds definitions, including “post conviction relief” and “shell petition,” and tightens the contents and service requirements for petitions. It requires petitions to identify the petitioner, custodian, prior applications, and all known or discoverable errors, and it directs service on both the district attorney and attorney general.
The bill also narrows eligibility and expands summary dismissal authority. It provides that a person must still be serving a sentence or be on probation/parole and in custody or supervision to seek relief, and it requires dismissal of applications filed after the sentence is completed. It creates a preliminary review process for courts to screen petitions for timeliness, procedural bars, and merit, and it authorizes dismissal of claims that are frivolous, procedurally barred, or facially insufficient. The bill further imposes abandonment rules for petitions with no activity for two years, sets deadlines for fully briefing older “shell petitions,” and gives the district attorney and attorney general a right to seek mandamus to enforce those deadlines.
HB 675 makes major changes to factual innocence claims and time limits. It limits factual innocence relief, especially for guilty pleas entered on or after August 1, 2025, and preserves only narrow exceptions for certain earlier filings. It also reinforces the two-year post-conviction filing deadline, adjusts exceptions for newly discovered facts and retroactive constitutional rulings, and adds special timing rules for death penalty cases and execution warrants. In addition, it requires courts to inform defendants of post-conviction deadlines at sentencing and makes the article’s limitations jurisdictional, meaning they cannot be waived.
The bill’s impact on state law is substantial because it restructures the post-conviction relief chapter in the Code of Criminal Procedure and related statutes governing capital-case representation. It repeals several existing provisions, adds new deadlines and enforcement mechanisms, expands the roles of the district attorney and attorney general, and creates a framework for faster judicial action through mandatory time periods and mandamus relief. It also authorizes supplemental funding requests for capital post-conviction counsel through the Joint Legislative Committee on the Budget and the Overcollections Fund when needed.
The overall sentiment appears generally supportive but not unanimous. The bill passed both chambers with clear majorities, suggesting broad legislative approval for tightening and speeding up post-conviction litigation. At the same time, the recorded nays in both the House and Senate indicate meaningful opposition, likely centered on the bill’s stricter procedural barriers, reduced access to factual innocence claims, and limits on late-filed or inactive applications. The main point of contention is the balance between finality and efficiency on one hand, and preserving access to collateral review for potentially meritorious claims on the other.
HB 675 amends multiple provisions of the Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure governing post-conviction relief and related capital-case procedures. It adds new definitions, imposes stricter pleading and service requirements, creates mandatory screening and dismissal rules, shortens and enforces deadlines for courts and the parties, limits factual innocence claims, and makes the chapter’s time and procedural restrictions jurisdictional. It also amends statutes on representation of capital defendants and appointment of post-conviction counsel, while repealing several existing post-conviction provisions.
The bill appears to have received generally favorable legislative support, as reflected by passage in both chambers and concurrence in amendments with substantial margins. The vote totals suggest that most lawmakers agreed with the bill’s goal of streamlining post-conviction litigation and reducing delay, especially in capital and long-pending cases. However, the nontrivial number of negative votes indicates concern about the bill’s restrictive effects on defendants seeking collateral relief.
The main controversy is the bill’s tightening of access to post-conviction relief. Opponents are likely concerned that the new jurisdictional deadlines, abandonment rules, limits on factual innocence claims, and expanded summary dismissal authority could prevent review of potentially valid claims, especially for indigent defendants and people who pled guilty. Supporters, by contrast, appear focused on finality, efficiency, and preventing stale or repetitive litigation. A secondary point of contention is the bill’s special treatment of capital cases, including accelerated deadlines, mandamus enforcement, and funding mechanisms for post-conviction counsel.