Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Lewis, 367 So. 2d 1155.

59 citing documents.

State of Louisiana v. George Joseph La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2022
However, instead of solidifying, the jurisprudence fractured along fault lines giving rise to what has been described as a “stuttering approach to the application of federal constitutional law to state court proceedings in Louisiana,” in an area of law “confused almost beyond understanding.” (Dennis, J., concurring).
State Of Louisiana v. David H. Brown (Parish of Lafourche) Convictions Affirmed; Death Sentences Reversed; Case Remanded For … La. 2021
In reviewing sequestration errors, courts “will look to the facts of the individual case to determine whether the violation resulted in prejudice to the defendant.” (La.
State v. Lyons 134 So. 3d 36 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
art. 771 condemns the use of remarks that are “irrelevant or immaterial and of such a nature that it might create prejudice against the defendant or the state, in the mind of the jury.” overruled in part on other grounds, (citing La.C.Cr.P.
State v. Tatten 116 So. 3d 843 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
|7In other cases, we have found a minute entry alone to be sufficient under [State v.] Lewis [ ] and [State v.] Holden [ ].
State v. Balsano 11 So. 3d 475 La. 2009
However, instead of solidifying, the jurisprudence fractured along fault lines giving rise to what has been described as a “stuttering approach to the application of federal constitutional law to state court proceedings in Louisiana,” in an area of law “confused almost beyond understanding.” (Dennis, J., concurring).
State of Louisiana v. Frederick James Collette La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
We note that this new procedure will not only give appropriate significance to the presumption of regularity which attaches to judgments of conviction which have become final, but will also provide an advantage to defendants who 4 were previously under [State v.] Lewis[, ] unable to introduce any extra-record evidence and whose guilty pleas were heretofore under [State v.] Tucker[, ] found constitutionally valid by mere proof of a minute entry and a guilty plea form.
State v. Townsend 859 So. 2d 885 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2003
the court was faced with deciding whether to extend its requirements under Jackson to the determination of guilty pleas sought to be used at habitual offender hearings.
State v. Johnson 833 So. 2d 508 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2003
See State v. Lewis, *512 [4] .
State v. Robinson 780 So. 2d 1213 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
We note that this new procedure will not only give appropriate significance to the presumption of regularity which attaches to judgments of conviction which have become final, but will also provide an advantage to defendants who were previously under [ State v. ] Lewis [ (1979)] unable to introduce any extra-record evidence and whose guilty pleas were heretofore under [ State v. ] Tucker [ (1981) ] found constitutionally valid by mere proof of a minute entry and a guilty plea form.
State v. Cooper 678 So. 2d 59 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
We note that this new procedure will not only give appropriate significance to the presumption of regularity which attaches to judgments of conviction which have become final, but will also provide an advantage to defendants who were previously under [ State v. ] Lewis [, ] [(La.1979)] unable to introduce any extra-record evidence and whose guilty pleas were heretofore under [ State v. ] Tucker [ ] [La.1981] found constitutionally valid by mere proof of a minute entry and a guilty plea form.
State v. Camp 641 So. 2d 702 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
We note that this new procedure will not only give appropriate significance to the presumption of regularity which attaches to judgments of conviction which have become final, but will also provide an advantage to defendants who were previously under [ State v.] Lewis [ ] unable to introduce any extra-record evidence and whose guilty pleas were heretofore under [ State v.] Tucker [ ] found constitutionally valid by mere proof of a minute entry and a guilty plea form.
State v. Abbott 634 So. 2d 911 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
We note that this new procedure will not only give appropriate significance to the presumption of regularity which attaches to judgments of conviction which have become final, but will also provide an advantage to defendants who were previously under [ ] unable to introduce any extra-record evidence and whose guilty pleas were heretofore under [ ] found constitutionally valid by mere proof of a minute entry and a guilty plea form.
State v. Shelton 621 So. 2d 769 La. 1993
State v. Anderson 554 So. 2d 133 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1989
State v. Gabriel 542 So. 2d 528 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1989
State v. Salter 515 So. 2d 609 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
1st Cir.) writ denied, n. 2 (La.1979), overruled in part on other grounds
State v. Martin 509 So. 2d 160 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
1st Cir.), writ denied, State v. Lewis, *167
State v. Alexander 503 So. 2d 782 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
State v. Ourso 502 So. 2d 246 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
State v. Junegain 478 So. 2d 542 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1985
1709 , 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969)
State v. Baker 471 So. 2d 945 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
State v. Milton 469 So. 2d 309 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
State v. Blunt 464 So. 2d 869 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1985
That "minute entry" is a count of chickens before they hatch; its pre-fabrication makes it no more a "contemporaneous record," than was "Dewey Defeats Truman."
State v. Gray 461 So. 2d 389 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
(partially overruled on other grounds, ), the Louisiana Supreme Court stated that: “In a multiple offender hearing, only those previous pleas of guilty may be used to enhance a sentence which are supported by a contemporaneous record of a Boykin examination demonstrating the free and
State v. Arrington 455 So. 2d 1284 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1984
State v. Wilkerson 448 So. 2d 1355 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
State v. Lynch 441 So. 2d 732 La. 1983
State v. Johnson 438 So. 2d 1091 La. 1983
State v. Murray 436 So. 2d 775 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1983
State v. Armstead 432 So. 2d 837 La. 1983
State v. Allen 431 So. 2d 808 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1983
-1159 (La.1979) the Louisiana Supreme Court stated: An order of sequestration is intended to assure that a witness will testify as to his own knowledge of the case without being influenced by the testimony of other witnesses, and to strengthen the role of cross-examination in developing the facts.
State v. Parker 421 So. 2d 834 La. 1982
State v. Bland 419 So. 2d 1227 La. 1982
State v. Bosworth 415 So. 2d 912 La. 1982
1709 , 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969); State ex rel.
State v. Yarbrough 418 So. 2d 503 La. 1982
the court, based on Boykin v. Alabama, supra , held that a 1970 guilty plea in a Louisiana Court could not be used to enhance punishment as a multiple offender unless the minutes or transcript of the plea affirmatively disclosed that the accused had waived his right to a jury trial, his right to confront hi
State v. Age 417 So. 2d 1183 La. 1982
that a conviction could not be used to enhance punishment in a multiple offender proceeding unless the record affirmatively discloses that the Jackson requirements were met.
State v. Bartholmew 411 So. 2d 1182 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
1709 , 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969), and, in connection with a multiple offender hearing, as required for those pleas of guilty used to enhance a
State v. Smith 415 So. 2d 930 La. 1982
Prior to the Holden decision, had held: only those previous pleas of guilty may be used to enhance a sentence which are supported by a contemporaneous record of a Boykin examination demonstrating the free and voluntary nature of a plea of guilty with an articulated waiver of the constitutional rights required by Boykin v. Alabama.
State v. Kimble 407 So. 2d 693 La. 1981
State v. Lee 407 So. 2d 1192 La. 1981
This court held, that a conviction could not be used to enhance punishment in a multiple-offender proceeding unless the record affirmatively disclosed that the Jackson requirements were met.
State v. McGinnis 413 So. 2d 1307 La. 1981
State v. Jones 404 So. 2d 1192 La. 1981
State v. Cusher 400 So. 2d 601 La. 1981
State v. Toomer 395 So. 2d 1320 La. 1981
State v. Sharp 390 So. 2d 1288 La. 1980
State v. Virgil 390 So. 2d 520 La. 1980
State v. Edsall 385 So. 2d 207 La. 1980
State v. Williams 384 So. 2d 779 La. 1980
State Ex Rel. Bishop v. Blackburn 384 So. 2d 406 La. 1980
we made the following statement regarding the use of guilty pleas in the context of multiple offender proceedings: "...
State v. Martin 382 So. 2d 933 La. 1980
we held that the only previous pleas of guilty which could be used to enhance a sentence are those supported by a contemporaneous record of a Boykin examination demonstrating the free and voluntary nature of the plea of guilty with the articulated waiver of the constitutional rights required by Boykin v. Al