Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Mendenhall, 944 So. 2d 560.

16 citing documents.

State v. Billups 188 So. 3d 1124 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2016
\ State v. Mendenhall, 06-1407 (La.12/08/06), .
State v. Kent 178 So. 3d 219 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
In State v. Mendenhall, 06-1407 (La.12/08/06), (per curiam), the Louisiana Supreme Court found that the trial judge’s statement informing the defendant that the State would have to prove it's case beyond a reasonable doubt and that his attorney would have the opportunity to cross-examine the State’s witnesses at a'trial was sufficiently tailored to inform the 29-y
State v. Price 140 So. 3d 1212 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2014
State v. Dodson, 07-0057 (La.11/2/07), ; State v. Mendenhall, 06-1407 (La.12/8/06), .
State v. Gay 136 So. 3d 919 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2014
We reasoned that the admonition satisfied Boykin because “[i]n common usage, the phrases confront and cross-examine always connote adversarial activities.” The Louisiana Supreme Court cited this rationale with approval in State v. Mendenhall, 2006-1407 (La.12/8/06), .
State v. Russell 73 So. 3d 991 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
In State v. Mendenhall, 2006-1407 (La.12/8/06), , the court approved advising the defendant, ‘Tour attorney would cross-examine the D.A.’s witnesses.” In State v. Smallwood, 2006-2363 (La.5/18/07), , the court approved advising the defendant that his “attorney would have the opportunity to cross-examine the state’s witnesses at trial.” In State v. Do
State of Louisiana v. Hung Nguyen La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
12/8/06), our supreme court reversed the lower court’s determination that the defendant’s guilty plea should be vacated for the trial court’s failure to adequately advise the defendant of his right to confront his accusers.
State v. Nguyen 55 So. 3d 976 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
The defendant argues, in brief, that “[m]erely explaining to a defendant that his attorney has a right to question witnesses does not adequately explain the defendant’s Constitutional confrontation rights.” In State v. Mendenhall, 06-1407 (La.12/8/06), , our supreme court reversed the lower court’s determination that the defendant’s guilty plea should be vacated for the trial court’s failure to adequately advise the defendant of his right to confront his accusers.
State v. Mosley 54 So. 3d 692 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
Following the supreme court’s reasoning in State v. Mendenhall, 06-1407 (La.12/8/06), (per curiam), 5 and State v. Smallwood, 06-2363 (La.5/18/07), , 6 this Court found that the defendant failed to show any irregularity in the predicate guilty pleas, since the guilty plea forms showed both the defendant’s attorney and the trial court advised the defendant of his right to confront his | ^
State of Louisiana v. Darrell James Fontenot La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
12/8/06), the supreme court discussed the obligations of the trial court in advising a defendant of his or her right of confrontation, another right covered by La.Code Crim.P.
State v. Otero 31 So. 3d 1125 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
In State v. Smallwood, 06-2363 (La.5/18/07), and State v. Mendenhall, 06-1407 (La.12/8/06), , the Louisiana Supreme Court noted that the language used in the trial judge’s statement, informing the defendant that the State would have to prove its ease beyond a reasonable doubt and that his attorney would have the opportunity to cross-examine the State’s witnesses at a trial, appeared sufficiently tailored to
State of Louisiana v. Dominique J. Casson La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
12/8/06), discussed what is necessary to satisfy the obligation to advise a defendant his right to trial by jury, confrontation, and the privilege against compulsory self-incrimination.
State v. Casson 2 So. 3d 1246 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
The supreme court in State v. Mendenhall, 06-1407, p. 1 (La.12/8/06), , discussed what is necessary to satisfy the obligation to advise a defendant his right to trial by jury, confrontation, and the privilege against compulsory self-incrimination.
State v. Dodson 967 So. 2d 487 La. 2007
.'" State v. Mendenhall, 06-1407, p. 1 (La.12/8/06), ().
State v. Smallwood 955 So. 2d 1264 La. 2007
*1265 State v. Mendenhall, 06-1407 (La.12/8/06), .
State v. Ford 957 So. 2d 311 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2007
lain State v. Mendenhall, 06-1407 (La.12/08/06), , the supreme court reversed a decision from this court and held: With respect to the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment, “[t]he main and essential purpose of confrontation is to secure for the opponent the opportunity of cross-examination.” Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308, 315-16 , 94 S.Ct.
State v. Mendenhall 948 So. 2d 1255 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2007
State v. Mendenhall, 06-1407 (La.12/8/06), .