DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Hegwood, 345 So. 2d 1179.

120 citing documents.

  • State v. Moore 958 So. 2d 36 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2007
    *45 the Louisiana Supreme Court held that a criminal defendant who has acquiesced in the representation of counsel throughout pretrial proceedings, who for the first time requests to represent himself the morning of trial under circumstances which indicate that the request was a delaying tactic, and who m
  • State of Louisiana v. Willard Brandenburg La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
    2525, 2541, 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975); -82 (La.1977).
  • State v. Brandenburg 949 So. 2d 625 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
    2525, 2541 , 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975); -82 (La.
  • State v. Draper 943 So. 2d 1277 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
  • State of Louisiana v. Mack Henry Johnson, Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
  • State of Louisiana v. Debbie W. Draper La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
  • State v. Johnson 944 So. 2d 864 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
  • State v. Pigford 935 So. 2d 261 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
  • State of Louisiana v. Nicholas Demond Pitree La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
  • State v. Pitree 930 So. 2d 265 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
  • State of Louisiana v. Parnell Poche La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
  • State v. Poche 924 So. 2d 1225 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
  • State v. Mendez 923 So. 2d 189 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2006
  • State v. Moore 920 So. 2d 334 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
  • State v. Morris 917 So. 2d 745 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2005
  • State v. Lee 909 So. 2d 672 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2005
  • State v. Brown 907 So. 2d 1 La. 2005
    2525, 2541 , 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975); -82 (La.1977).
  • State of Louisiana v. Tyrone Hypolite La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
  • State v. Hypolite 903 So. 2d 1275 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
  • State of Louisiana v. Chet K. Whatley La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
  • State v. Whatley 858 So. 2d 751 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
  • State v. Batchelor 823 So. 2d 367 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2002
    State v. Carpenter, supra
  • State v. Bridgewater 823 So. 2d 877 La. 2002
    2525, 2541 , 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975); -82 (La.1977).
  • State v. Santos 770 So. 2d 319 La. 2000
    at 691 ("[M]ost courts require [a defendant] to [make the request] in a timely manner.") (footnote omitted); ("[A] criminal defendant who has acquiesced in the representation of counsel, who for the first time requests to represent himself the morning of trial under circumstances which indicate that the request was a delaying tactic, and who makes no showing at all of any particular reason for his delay in as
  • State v. Norman 756 So. 2d 525 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2000
  • State v. Hodges 749 So. 2d 732 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
  • State v. Sullivan 729 So. 2d 1101 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
  • State v. King 702 So. 2d 814 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
  • State v. Mahogany 694 So. 2d 505 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1997
  • State v. Hayes 670 So. 2d 683 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
  • State v. Lay 637 So. 2d 801 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
  • State v. Lawrence 600 So. 2d 1341 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
    This Court determined, that before a trial judge can allow a defendant to defend himself he must personally determine that defendant's waiver of the right and privilege of having appointed counsel to represent him is an unequivocal and clear assertion of his right to represent himself.
  • State v. Warner 594 So. 2d 397 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
    State v. Dupre, 500 So.2d at 878 .
  • State v. Camp 580 So. 2d 957 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1991
  • State v. Desdunes 576 So. 2d 520 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1990
  • State v. Goodwin 551 So. 2d 715 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
    -1182 (La.1977); (La.App.
  • State v. Sepulvado 549 So. 2d 928 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
  • State v. Spellman 547 So. 2d 1361 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1989
    However, the Louisiana Supreme Court held that when an accused waits until the morning of the trial to ask for new counsel or alternatively to represent himself, it is not a deprivation of a *1365 constitutional right when a reading of the record convinces the court that the motion is intended only as another delay
  • State v. Winzer 545 So. 2d 1259 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1989
  • State v. Rinehart 544 So. 2d 1281 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1989
  • State v. Adams 526 So. 2d 867 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1988
  • State v. Dupre 500 So. 2d 873 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
  • State v. Thompson 489 So. 2d 1364 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
  • State v. Smith 479 So. 2d 1062 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
    before a trial judge can allow defendant's self-representation, he must determine that defendant's waiver is intelligently and voluntarily made, and that his assertion to represent himself is clear and unequivocal.
  • State v. Seiss 428 So. 2d 444 La. 1983
  • State v. Washington 421 So. 2d 887 La. 1982
    That record, however, does not indicate, as it must, that Washington's waiver of that right was made intelligently and voluntarily so that his decision to represent himself was a clear and *891 unequivocal choice
  • State v. Stephenson 412 So. 2d 553 La. 1982
  • State v. Vaccaro 411 So. 2d 415 La. 1982
    State v. Williams, supra
  • State v. Penns 407 So. 2d 678 La. 1981
  • State v. St. Amant 413 So. 2d 1312 La. 1981