DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Myles, 389 So. 2d 12.

69 citing documents.

  • State of Louisiana v. Larry J. Cooper, Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2024
    This Court therefore “does not sit to second-guess strategic and tactical choices made by trial counsel.”
  • State of Louisiana v. Termaine Lewis La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2024
    A court therefore “does not sit to second-guess strategic and tactical choices made by trial counsel.” (La.
  • State of Louisiana v. Gerald Ladmirault La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2024
  • State of Louisiana v. Donald J. Reaux La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2024
  • State of Louisiana Versus Jerman Neveaux La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2023
  • State Of Louisiana v. Charles Chandler La. 2023
  • State Of Louisiana v. David H. Brown (Parish of Lafourche) Convictions Affirmed; Death Sentences Reversed; Case Remanded For … La. 2021
    This C ourt stressed that defendant’s decision “implicated bedrock principles that have shaped evolving capital jurisprudence over the past 30 years,” noting: A defendant in a capital case has the Sixth Amendment right to reasonably effective counsel “acting as a diligent, conscientious advocate for his life.” (La.
  • State of Louisiana v. Darrell Toubya Thomas La. 2019
    A court therefore “does not sit to second-guess strategic and tactical choices made by trial counsel.” (La.
  • State v. Galle 267 So. 3d 114 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
  • State v. Daniels 262 So. 3d 356 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
    State v. Myles , , 31 (La.
  • State v. Leonard 262 So. 3d 378 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
    State v. Myles , , 31 (La.
  • State v. Dressner 255 So. 3d 537 La. 2018
    1983) ; State v. Myles , , 28 (La.
  • State v. Reeves 254 So. 3d 665 La. 2018
    1983) ; State v. Myles , , 28 (La.
  • State v. Broadway 252 So. 3d 878 La. 2018
    1983) ; State v. Myles , , 28 (La.
  • State of Louisiana v. Adam Comeaux La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2018
    We do “‘not sit to second-guess strategic and tactical choices made by trial counsel.’” State v. Hoffman, 98–3118, p. 40 (La.4/11/00); ).
  • State v. Comeaux 239 So. 3d 920 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
    4/11/00), , 579 quoting State v. Myles , , 31 (La.1979) ).
  • State of Louisiana v. Robert Leroy McCoy 218 So. 3d 535 La. 2016
    345, 148 L.Ed.2d 277 (2000); (La.
  • State v. Tyler 181 So. 3d 678 La. 2015
    IsA defendant at the penálty phase of a capital trial is entitled to the assistance of a reasonably competent attorney acting as a diligent, conscientious advocate for his life, (on reh’g); see also Burger v. Kemp, 483 U.S. 776, 788-89 , 107 S.Ct.
  • State v. Paulson 177 So. 3d 360 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
    A reviewing court “does not sit to second-guess strategic and tactical choices made by counsel.” Small , 13-1334, pp. 1415, 147 So.3d at 1284 .
  • State v. Lee 181 So. 3d 631 La. 2015
    A defendant at the penalty phase of a capital trial is entitled to the assistance of a reasonably competent attorney acting as a diligent, conscientious advocate for his life, (on reh’g); see also Burger v. Kemp, 483 U.S. 776, 788-89 , 107 S.Ct.
  • State v. Jenkins 172 So. 3d 27 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
    We do “ ‘not sit to second-guess strategic and tactical' choices made by trial counsel,’ ” State v. Hoffman, 98-3118, p. 40 (La.4/11/00), (), and “must indulge a strong presumption that counsel’s conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance....” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689 , 104 S.Ct.
  • State ex rel. Wearry v. Cain 161 So. 3d 620 La. 2015
  • State v. Boyd 164 So. 3d 259 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
    We do “ ‘not sit to second-guess strategic and tactical choices made by trial counsel.’ ” State v. Hoffman, 98-3118, p. 40 (La.4/11/00); , 579 | .¡().
  • State v. Small 147 So. 3d 1274 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    We do “‘not sit to second-guess strategic and tactical choices made by trial counsel.’ ” State v. Hoffman, 98-3118, p. 40 (La.4/11/00), ().
  • State of Louisiana v. Devonta Mitchell La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
    penalty hearing); State v. Sanders, 93-0001 (La.11/30/94), -1293 (counsel’s tepid opening at the penalty phase admitting unreadiness coupled with failure to present mitigating evidence, prepare witnesses, object to inadmissible unadjudicated other crimes evidence or make a closing argument required a new penalty phase); (failing to offer mitigating evidence followed by perfunctory and lackluster closing argument which did not emphasize the jurors’ legal obligations designed to prevent arbitrary
  • State v. Sparks 68 So. 3d 435 La. 2011
    We find this closing argument to be similar to a -29 (La.1980) (on rehearing).
  • State v. Ford 57 So. 3d 297 La. 2011
  • State v. Bordelon 33 So. 3d 842 La. 2009
    A defendant in a capital case has the Sixth Amendment right to reasonably effective counsel “acting as a diligent, conscientious advocate for his life.” (on reh’g) (citations omitted).
  • State v. Holmes 5 So. 3d 42 La. 2008
    (recognizing that this Court "does not sit to second-guess strategic and tactical choices made by trial counsel.") Notwithstanding, we observe the defendant presented evidence from three experts at the penalty phase alleging she suffered from fetal alcohol syndrome and argued that as a mitigating factor
  • State v. Stewart 815 So. 2d 14 La. 2002
    (on reh'g); ("Entirely satisfactory representation may include a brief closing argument intended to focus the jury's attention on a single item of strategy which counsel deems most likely to achieve a favorable verdict.").
  • State v. LaCaze 824 So. 2d 1063 La. 2002
  • State v. Miller 776 So. 2d 396 La. 2000
    and admissible material, requiring a new penalty hearing); State v. Sanders, 93-0001 (La.11/30/94), -1293 (counsel's tepid opening at the penalty phase admitting unreadiness coupled with failure to present mitigating evidence, prepare witnesses, object to inadmissible unadjudicated other crimes evidence or make a closing argument required a new penalty phase); (failing to offer mitigating evidence followed by perfunctory and lackluster closing argument which did not emphasize the jurors' legal o
  • State v. Hoffman 768 So. 2d 542 La. 2000
  • State ex rel. Scales v. State 718 So. 2d 402 La. 1998
    This court does not sit to “second-guess strategic and tactical choices made by trial counsel.” (on rehearing).
  • State v. Strickland 683 So. 2d 218 La. 1996
  • State v. Brooks 661 So. 2d 1333 La. 1995
    11/30/94); ; (on rehearing).
  • State v. Johnson 652 So. 2d 1061 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1995
  • State v. Sanders 648 So. 2d 1272 La. 1994
  • State v. Messiah 538 So. 2d 175 La. 1988
    at 28 (La.1980) (on rehearing).
  • State Ex Rel. Busby v. Butler 538 So. 2d 164 La. 1988
  • State v. Myles 534 So. 2d 440 La. 1988
  • State v. Johnson 533 So. 2d 1288 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1988
  • State v. Pierre 524 So. 2d 1289 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
  • State v. Brooks 505 So. 2d 714 La. 1987
    1903 , 77 L.Ed.2d 290 (1983); (on rehearing).
  • State v. Carmouche 480 So. 2d 728 La. 1985
  • State v. Jones 474 So. 2d 919 La. 1985
  • State v. Williams 480 So. 2d 721 La. 1985
  • State v. Fuller 454 So. 2d 119 La. 1984
  • Moore v. Maggio 435 So. 2d 997 La. 1983
    It indicated that if the jury made a mistake, “the mistake can be corrected, in which this court ordered a new trial for want of effective counsel on the penalty phase in a capital case.
  • State v. Berry 430 So. 2d 1005 La. 1983