Four Applications, Four Claims, and a Fifth Called a Repeat

By Mrs. Eileen Hunter — about the author.

The district court’s ruling of April 29, 2026 dismissed Mr. Hunter’s fifth application for post-conviction relief as duplicative of prior claims under La. C.Cr.P. art. 930.4. The Motion to Reconsider filed June 4, 2026 set out what each earlier application had actually raised: in 2007, filed pro se, ineffective assistance of counsel and failure to investigate, including the jail’s double-paned window; in 2009, a Brady/Kyles claim about an investigator’s note on the .22; in 2013, Glen Dale Nelson’s 2012 affidavit and counsel’s failure to investigate him; in 2022, factual innocence under art. 926.2. The 2026 claim, the motion said, is different in kind — that the State did not disclose impeachment evidence about Vaccara Comanche’s habitual-offender exposure and his treatment after he testified. (Motion to Reconsider, Detailed History and Argument I.) (Full transcription.)

The motion argued that the court’s ruling “identifies no prior application in which Mr. Hunter alleged that the State suppressed impeachment evidence concerning Vaccara Comanche’s habitual-offender exposure, favorable treatment, expectation of benefit, motive to cooperate, or bias as a State witness.” The supervisory writ filed July 9, 2026 makes the same point its first assignment of error. (The writ application · the 2026 application.)

The other half: the court denied reconsideration on June 9, 2026 — by hand, across the proposed order that would have set an evidentiary hearing. Its ruling is reviewed for abuse of discretion, a deferential standard. Whether the 2026 claim is “the same” as the earlier ones is the question the Second Circuit will decide; until it does, the district court’s finding stands. (Procedural history.)