DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite City of Monroe v. Fincher, 305 So. 2d 108.

26 citing documents.

  • State v. Deville 879 So. 2d 689 La. 2004
  • State v. Pugh 588 So. 2d 702 La. 1991
  • State v. Strain 585 So. 2d 540 La. 1991
  • State v. Sammon 582 So. 2d 360 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1991
    2006 , 32 L.Ed.2d 530 (1972); (La.
  • State v. Bradley 535 So. 2d 1108 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1988
  • State v. Creamer 528 So. 2d 667 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1988
  • State v. St. Pierre 515 So. 2d 769 La. 1987
  • State v. Broussard 487 So. 2d 1261 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986
    which follows Argersinger v. Hamlin, 407 U.S. 25 , 92 S.Ct.
  • State ex rel. Pindexter 413 So. 2d 1349 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
  • State v. Bennett 407 So. 2d 683 La. 1981
    based on the United States Supreme Court ruling in Argensinger v. Hamlin, 407 U.S. 25 , 92 S.Ct.
  • State v. Wiggins 399 So. 2d 206 La. 1981
    [5] this Court applied the Argersinger rationale to hold that an uncounseled guilty plea to a prior DWI offense, absent a knowing and intelligent waiver of counsel, could not be used to enhance punishment upon conviction of a subsequent DWI offense, even though the accused was not imprisoned as a consequence of
  • State v. Stafford 394 So. 2d 1287 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
    The Louisiana Supreme Court *1289 held that Argersinger 3 prohibited the use of a prior uncounselled DWI conviction in the prosecution and imprisonment of a repeat DWI offender whether or not his sentence following the prior conviction included imprisonment.
  • State v. Woodard 387 So. 2d 1066 La. 1980
    Argersinger v. Hamlin, 407 U.S. 25 , 92 S.Ct.
  • State v. Varnado 384 So. 2d 440 La. 1980
  • State v. Harper 381 So. 2d 468 La. 1980
  • State v. Hoffman 345 So. 2d 1 La. 1977
    this court applied Argersinger v. Hamlin, 407 U.S. 25 , 92 S.Ct.
  • State v. Franklin 337 So. 2d 1152 La. 1976
    *1154 this court applied the Argersinger rationale to the imposition of progressively more severe penalties for repeat offenders convicted of driving while intoxicated.
  • State v. Bernard 326 So. 2d 332 La. 1976
    2006 , 32 L.Ed.2d 530 (1972)
  • State v. Free 321 So. 2d 50 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1976
  • State v. Love 312 So. 2d 675 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1975
    the Louisiana Supreme Court decided that the holding in Argersinger is not limited to indigents, and that a prior uncounseled D.W.I.
  • State v. Carlisle 315 So. 2d 675 La. 1975
    this Court held that under Argersinger , a prior uncounseled conviction for driving while intoxicated could not be used as a primary conviction in subsequent prosecution of an accused as a repeat offender.
  • State v. Oliveaux 312 So. 2d 337 La. 1975
    [2] we held that a defendant could not be subject to prosecution and imprisonment as a repeat offender where the record of his prior conviction for the same offense did not show that he had been represented by counsel or had waived counsel.
  • State v. Harris 312 So. 2d 643 La. 1975
  • State v. Fuller 312 So. 2d 287 La. 1975
  • State v. Strange 308 So. 2d 795 La. 1975
    193 , 38 L.Ed.2d 187 (1973); (La.
  • State v. Prevot 305 So. 2d 124 La. 1974