State v. Darville — Supervisory writ denied under postconviction filing rule

Case
State of Louisiana v. Donovan Darville
Court
Louisiana Court of Appeal, First Circuit
Judge
Wolfe; Stromberg; Balfour
Date Decided
October 5, 2026
Docket No.
2026 KW 0834
Topics
Postconviction Relief, Supervisory Writs, Filing Requirements
Source
Read the full opinion

Background

Donovan Darville applied for supervisory review of proceedings in the 23rd Judicial District Court for Ascension Parish, case number 37382. The appellate court’s brief order does not describe his conviction, sentence, postconviction claims, or the district court ruling he sought to challenge.

The order focuses on Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure article 926(A). That provision requires an application for postconviction relief to include a copy of the judgment of conviction and sentence or to allege that the applicant demanded a copy and was refused.

The Court’s Holding

The Louisiana First Circuit denied Darville’s supervisory writ application. The court cited article 926(A)’s documentary and pleading requirements for postconviction-relief applications.

The order does not address the merits of any underlying postconviction claim. Nor does it provide additional analysis beyond identifying the statutory requirement governing submission of the conviction and sentence.

Key Takeaways

  • A Louisiana postconviction-relief application must include a copy of the judgment of conviction and sentence or allege that a requested copy was refused.
  • The First Circuit denied Darville’s request for supervisory review without reaching any underlying postconviction issue in the order.
  • The ruling underscores the importance of complying with article 926(A)’s filing requirements before seeking appellate supervisory review.

Why It Matters

The order highlights a threshold procedural requirement for Louisiana postconviction practice. Applicants should attach the judgment of conviction and sentence or expressly allege that they demanded those documents and were refused.

For counsel, the decision is a reminder that an incomplete record or petition can prevent substantive consideration of postconviction arguments.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top