2000-K-0659 Precedential Processed

State v. Richard

Louisiana Supreme Court · Filed September 29, 2000 · 769 So. 2d 1177

Cited by

State of Louisiana v. Damari Jennings La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2019
State of Louisiana v. Richard Vital La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
State of Louisiana v. Richard Vital La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
State v. Vital 107 So. 3d 1274 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Vital 107 So. 3d 1279 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Roberts 973 So. 2d 791 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2007
State v. Collins 886 So. 2d 1149 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2004
State v. Verdin 845 So. 2d 372 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
State v. Lewis 800 So. 2d 1032 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2001
State v. Richard 779 So. 2d 927 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2000
State v. Kreger 774 So. 2d 1273 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000

Authorities cited

Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.

State v. Guzman 769 So. 2d 1158
State v. Godejohn 425 So. 2d 750
State v. Filer 762 So. 2d 1080
State v. Strain 585 So. 2d 540
State v. Lastrapes 743 So. 2d 224

Opinion text

769 So.2d 1177 (2000) STATE of Louisiana v. Gene Allen RICHARD, II. No. 2000-K-0659. Supreme Court of Louisiana. September 29, 2000. PER CURIAM. Granted. The decision of the Third Circuit is reversed, and this case is remanded to the court of appeal for consideration of the remaining assignments of error, counseled and pro se, pretermitted on original appeal. In State v. Guzman, 99-1528, p. 6 (La.5/16/00), 769 So.2d 1158 , *1178 1162, this Court expressly overruled its prior decision in State v. Godejohn, 425 So.2d 750, 751 (La.1983), and thereby made clear that a guilty plea colloquy is not part of the record for purposes of error patent review. The court of appeal therefore erred to the extent that it relied on La.C.Cr.P. art. 920 as authority for reaching the claimed defects in the defendant's guilty plea colloquy. Moreover, even assuming that the defendant's first pro se assignment of error, broadly construed, encompassed a challenge under La. C.C.P. art. 556.1 to the trial court's use of an en masse Boykin procedure, the validity of any guilty plea "`depends upon the circumstances of each case."' State v. Filer, 00-0073, p. 2 (La.6/30/00), 762 So.2d 1080, 1081 (quoting State v. Strain, 585 So.2d 540, 544, n. 7 (La.1991)). In the present case, as in Filer , those portions of the Boykin colloquy which the trial judge conducted personally and individually with the defendant, ranging from his age, work experience and education to the nature of the offense and its penalty provisions, the necessity of compliance with the sex offender registration provisions of La.R.S. 15:542 upon conviction, and the extent of the plea bargain with the state, placed the court in a position to determine the knowing and voluntary nature of the defendant's subsequent waiver of the trial rights the court explained personally but collectively to the several persons entering guilty pleas on the same day. To the extent that it conflicts with the views expressed herein and in Filer , the court of appeal's decision in State v. Lastrapes, 99-0083 (La.App. 3rd Cir.6/30/99), 743 So.2d 224 , is disapproved.