PER CURIAM
:
Writ granted in part; case remanded. The District Court is ordered to conduct an evidentiary hearing limited to the issue of whether relator is entitled to a new trial based on the victim's recantation. See Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 92 S.Ct. 763, 31 L.Ed.2d 104 (1972) ; Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264, 79 S.Ct. 1173, 3 L.Ed.2d 1217 (1959) ; see also State v. Pierre, 13–0873 (La. 10/15/13), 125 So.3d 403 ; State v. Conway, 01–2808 (La. 4/12/02), 816 So.2d 290. Relator's remaining claims are untimely, see La.C.Cr.P. Art. 930.8 ; State ex rel. Glover v. State, 93–2330 (La. 9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189, and in all other respects, the application is denied.
CLARK, J., dissents and would deny.
CRICHTON, J., dissents and assigns reasons.CLARK, J., dissenting.
I would deny.
CRICHTON, J., dissents and assigns reasons:
I respectfully dissent. I would deny Trivenskey Odom's writ application as I do not believe that his claims, as presented, warrant an evidentiary hearing. La. C.Cr.P. Art. 930.2 ; see State v. Pierre , 13–0873 (La. 10/15/13), 125 So.3d 403 ; State v. Conway , 01–2808 (La. 4/12/02), 816 So.2d 290. Odom's remaining claims are untimely. La. C.Cr.P. Art. 930.8 ; State ex rel. Glover v. State , 93–2330 (La. 9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189. Further, I would deem Odom's claims fully litigated in these state collateral proceedings in accord with La. C.Cr.P. Art. 930.6 and thus final.