Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Hampton, 818 So. 2d 720.

40 citing documents.

State of Louisiana v. Dequincy Jamel Lewis La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2026
2704, 2710, 97 L.Ed.2d 37 (1987); State v. Hampton, 00-0522, pp. 4-5 (La.3/22/02), –724.
State of Louisiana v. Jarvis Turner La. 2026
3/22/02), the court of appeal reversed, finding that such collateral attacks must be accompanied by testimony or an affidavit from defense counsel acknowledging they prevented the defendant from testifying.
State of Louisiana v. Brhian Thomas La. 2025
3/22/02), –30, we see no reason not to consider applicant’s sworn post-conviction testimony in connection with his other claims.
State of Louisiana v. Jarvis Turner La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2025
3/22/02), which held that such violations constitute structural error not subject to harmless error review, the State’s position raises important considerations.
State of Louisiana v. Destiny Lacourse La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2024
State of Louisiana Versus Arthur Williams La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2024
03/22/02), -30, the Louisiana Supreme Court, quoting Passos-Paternina v. United States, 12 F. Supp. 2d 231, 239-40 (D.P.R.
State of Louisiana v. Kendrick Nelson Shepherd La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2024
2704, 2710, 97 L.Ed.2d 37 (1987); State v. Hampton, 00–0522, pp. 4–5 (La.3/22/02), –724.
State of Louisiana v. William A. McDonough La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2023
3/22/02), ), writ denied, 2022-00923, p. 1 (La.
State of Louisiana v. Damond Scott La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2023
3/22/02), on reh'g in part (June 7, 2002), the Louisiana Supreme Court adopted two criteria for determining 22 whether a defendant’s right to testify was violated or waived by his silence at trial, stating as follows: (1) absent extraordinary circumstances that should al
State Of Louisiana v. Robert Javontie Marks La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2023
State of Louisiana Versus John W. Patton La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2022
3/22/02), on reh'g in part (6/7/02).
State of Louisiana v. Eddie Harrison La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2022
State of Louisiana Versus Isaiah Doyle La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2021
3/22/02), on reh’g in part (6/7/02).
State Of Louisiana v. Terrence Ty'rell Carvin La. 2021
3/22/02), turned to Passos -Paternina v. United States , 12 F.Supp.2d 231 (D.P.R.
State of Louisiana v. Matthew Chester La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2020
3/22/02), on limited reh’g (June 7, 2002), wary that a broad-based ruling on the denial of a defendant’s right to testify could open the floodgates for post-conviction relief in any case in which the defendant did not testify, the Louisiana Supreme Court adopted two criteria for determining whether a defendant’s right to t
State v. Latique 265 So. 3d 93 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
3/22/02), , argues that if his right to testify was violated, his convictions and sentences must be set aside.
State of Louisiana v. Elijah James Latique La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2019
3/22/02), argues that if his right to testify was violated, his convictions and sentences must be set aside.
State of Louisiana v. Chadwick McGhee La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2017
3/22/02), - 30), Defendant needs to “‘allege specific facts, including an affidavit from counsel’ and point to record evidence to support his claim.” Although Defendant has raised specific allegations regarding the circumstances surrounding his alleged denial of the right to testify, the record before this court does no
State v. McGhee 229 So. 3d 581 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
3/22/02), -30 ), Defendant needs to “‘allege specific facts, including an affidavit from counsel’ and- point to record evidence to support his claim.” Although Defendant has raised specific allegations regarding the circumstances surrounding hiS' alleged denial of the right to testify, the record before this court does not
State v. Davis 199 So. 3d 1139 La. 2016
State v. Wells 191 So. 3d 1127 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
See, e.g., State v. Hampton, 00-0522 (La.3/22/02), .
State ex rel. Arnaud v. State 188 So. 3d 1004 La. 2016
State v. Hampton, 05-0522, p. 14-15 (La.3/22/02), -30 .
State of Louisiana v. Robert Glen Coleman 188 So. 3d 174 La. 2016
3/22/02), this court established criteria to aid trial courts in determining whether a defendant has waived his right to testify or simply chose not to do so for strategic purposes: (1) absent extraordinary circumstances that should alert the trial court to a conflict between attorney and client, the court sho
State v. Rumley 183 So. 3d 640 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
2704, 2708-2710 , 97 L.Ed.2d 37 (1987); State v. Hampton, 2000-0522, p. 5-7 (La.3/22/02), 25 .
State v. Johnson 182 So. 3d 1039 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2015
944 , 79 L.Ed.2d 122 (1984); State v. Hampton, 2000-522 (La.3/22/02), ; State v. Shumaker, supra.
State v. Marzett 123 So. 3d 831 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Hampton, 00-0522, p. 10 (La.3/22/02), .
State v. Alexander 118 So. 3d 1138 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
In State v. Hampton, 00-522 (La.3/22/02), , on reh’g, (La.6/7/02) (citing Passos-Paternina v. United States, 12 F.Supp.2d 231 (D.P.R.1998)), the Louisiana Supreme Court set forth the following guidelines to be utilized by the courts in determining whether a criminal defendant’s right to testify has been violated or waived by his silence during trial: (1)
State v. Hall 108 So. 3d 188 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2012
In State v. Hampton, 2000-0522 (La.3/22/02), , on reh’g, (La.6/7/02), citing Passos-Paternina v. United States, 12 F.Supp.2d 231 (D.P.R.1998), the Louisiana Supreme Court set forth the following guidelines to be utilized by the courts in determining whether a criminal defendant’s right to testify has been violated or waived by his silence during trial: (1) absen
STATE EX REL. HILLS v. State 54 So. 3d 1109 La. 2011
*1110 Nonetheless, under either version of the trial transcript, relator fails to show that he was denied the right to testify under the standards set forth in State v. Hampton, 00-0522, pp. 14-15 (La.3/22/02), -30 (inmate must “allege specific facts, including an affidavit from counsel” and point to record evidence to support his claim).
State of Louisiana v. Ronnie White-Hardison La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
2704, 2710, 97 L.Ed.2d 37 (1987); State v. Hampton, 00-0522, pp. 4-5 (La.3/22/02), -724.
State v. WHITE-HARDISON 998 So. 2d 939 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
2704, 2710 , 97 L.Ed.2d 37 (1987); State v. Hampton, 00-0522, pp. 4-5 (La.3/22/02), -724 .
State v. Shaw 969 So. 2d 1233 La. 2007
2704, 2710 , 97 L.Ed.2d 37 (1987); State v. Hampton, 00-0522, pp. 4-5 (La.3/22/02), -724 .
State v. James 938 So. 2d 691 La. 2006
State v. Hampton, 00-0522, p. 14-15 (La.3/22/02), -30 .
State v. Shaw 939 So. 2d 519 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
He contends that the judge's questioning violated his constitutional rights under State v. Hampton, XXXX-XXXX (La.3/22/02), .
State of Louisiana v. Ricky J. Langley La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
3/22/02), State v. Brown, 03-1747 (La.App.
State v. Langley 896 So. 2d 200 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
See also, State v. Hampton, 00-0522 (La.3/22/02), ; State v. Brown, 03-1747 (La.App.
State v. Jones 888 So. 2d 766 La. 2004
In addition, State v. Hampton, 00-0522 (La.3/22/02), , does not provide an exception to the time bar because it does not set out a “theretofore unknown interpretation of constitutional law ...
State v. Lagarde 861 So. 2d 871 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
Mr. Lagarde thus contends that this case is functionally identical to State v. Hampton, 2000-0522 (La.3/22/02), , and that he is entitled to a new trial.
Distinguished State v. Morgan 842 So. 2d 1126 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
4 Cir. 7/17/02) , , and State v. Hampton, 2000-0522 (La.3/22/02), .
State v. Thompson 825 So. 2d 552 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2002
Since this application has been pending in this court the Louisiana Supreme Court decided State v. Hampton, 00-0522 (La.3/22/02), , wherein the Court found that the violation of the right to testify was a structural error for which a harmless test could not be used.