Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Cole, 900 So. 2d 15.

13 citing documents.

State v. Jackson 259 So. 3d 533 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
App. 5 Cir. 3/1/05), , 23-24 (explanation by defense counsel and a well-executed waiver of rights form were sufficient to support a knowing and voluntary guilty plea even without specific advisal of the right against self-incrimination from the trial judge).
State v. Carroll 224 So. 3d 1179 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
App. 5 Cir. 3/1/05), -24 .
State v. Ellison 168 So. 3d 862 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
State v. Jones 125 So. 3d 1169 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
5 Cir. 3/1/05) , -24 (explanation by defense counsel and a well-executed waiver-of-rights form were sufficient to support a knowing and voluntary guilty plea even without specific advisal of the right against self-incrimination from trial judge).
State v. Jones 123 So. 3d 758 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
5 Cir. 3/1/05) , -24 (explanation by defense counsel and a well-executed waiver-of-rights form were sufficient to support a knowing and voluntary guilty plea even without specific advisal of the right against self-incrimination from trial judge).
State of Louisiana v. Harvey G. Love La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
State v. Miller 102 So. 3d 956 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
State of Louisiana v. Benny Christopher Kimbrough La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
5 Cir. 3/1/05), the fifth circuit rejected a challenge to the defendant’s guilty plea on the basis that the trial judge failed to inform the defendant of his right against self-incrimination.
State v. Kimbrough 38 So. 3d 1258 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
5 Cir. 3/1/05) , , the fifth circuit rejected a challenge to the defendant’s guilty plea on the basis that the trial judge failed to inform the defendant of his right against self-incrimination.
State v. Fowler 40 So. 3d 1136 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
State v. Shelton 39 So. 3d 601 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
5 Cir. 3/1/05) , , a case similar to this one, the defendant complained on appeal that his guilty plea was not knowingly and voluntarily made because the trial judge failed to properly inform him of his right against self-incrimination.
State v. Allemand 30 So. 3d 939 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
5 Cir. 3/1/05) , -23 (This court found that appellate counsel only minimally complied with the requirements of Anders , but nevertheless granted her motion to withdraw, since there were no non-frivolous issues for appeal.).
State v. Jones 9 So. 3d 893 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
5 Cir. 3/1/05) , , 24 and State v. Hebert, 838 So.2d at 34 , where this court, under similar circumstances, found that the defendants were fully apprised of their rights and entered their guilty pleas knowingly and voluntarily.