2001-KP-1399 Precedential Processed

State v. Arnold

Louisiana Supreme Court · Filed April 12, 2002 · 816 So. 2d 289

Cited by

State v. Stevens 260 So. 3d 776 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
State of Louisiana v. Raymond Daniel Lowrey La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2017
State v. Lowrey 228 So. 3d 779 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
State v. Engle 213 So. 3d 1261 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
State v. Miller 102 So. 3d 956 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
State of Louisiana v. Edwin N. Rivera La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
State v. Garcia 66 So. 3d 24 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State v. Jenkins 57 So. 3d 405 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
State v. Sepulvado 25 So. 3d 899 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2009
State of Louisiana v. Roy J. Chapman, Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
State of Louisiana v. Eulicee Jamar Williams La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
State v. Landfair 979 So. 2d 619 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2008

all 24 citing documents »

Authorities cited

Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.

State v. McKinney 406 So. 2d 160
State Ex Rel. Adams v. Butler 558 So. 2d 552

Opinion text

816 So.2d 289 (2002) STATE of Louisiana v. Christopher D. ARNOLD. No. 2001-KP-1399. Supreme Court of Louisiana. April 12, 2002. *290 PER CURIAM. Writ granted; convictions and sentences reinstated. Generally, guilty pleas constitute a waiver of all non-jurisdictional defects, see, e.g., State v. McKinney, 406 So.2d 160, 161 (La.1981), and generally courts review them only to ensure that the plea "was both counseled and voluntary." United States v. Broce, 488 U.S. 563, 569 , 109 S.Ct. 757, 762 , 102 L.Ed.2d 927 (1989). Though the Supreme Court and this Court have created an exception to this rule for double jeopardy violations, Broce, 488 U.S. at 575-76 , 109 S.Ct. at 765 ; State ex rel. Adams v. Butler, 558 So.2d 552 , 553 n. 1 (La.1990), that exception applies only "where on the face of the record the court had no power to enter the conviction or impose the sentence." Broce, 488 U.S. at 575-76 , 109 S.Ct. at 765 . Properly applied, the exception requires limited review of only the charging documents and plea colloquy. See Hagan v. State, 836 S.W.2d 459, 461 (Mo.1992). The instant case by contrast required the court of appeal's probing analysis and numerous fact-bound determinations implicating a wide variety of materials to suggest a possible obscure double jeopardy violation, while under proper facial review of the charging documents and plea colloquy, Arnold shows no double jeopardy violation. See La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.2.