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. Halsell, 403 So. 2d 688.

64 citing documents.

  • State of Louisiana v. Jareona Nicole Crosby La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2022
  • State v. Jackson 259 So. 3d 533 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
    State v. Halsell , , 690 (La.
  • State v. Carroll 224 So. 3d 1179 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
  • State v. Morgan 134 So. 3d 1160 La. 2014
    (a trial court may rely on the contemporaneous statements of counsel on a plea waiver form because “[a]ny other holding by this Court would tend to undermine the relationship of trust that must necessarily exist between the bench and bar.”); (declining to
  • State v. Jones 125 So. 3d 1169 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
  • State v. Jones 123 So. 3d 758 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
  • State v. Tatten 116 So. 3d 843 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    Likewise, (emphasis added), we noted that a “colloquy may not be indispensable, as long as the record contains some other affirmative showing to support the plea.” Thus, even though the transcript of the colloquy revealed that the judge did not expressly obtain a waiver of defendant’s privilege against self-incri
  • State v. Ott 102 So. 3d 944 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2012
    “[wjhile it is preferable for the trial judge to conduct a colloquy with the defendant to ascertain the validity of the plea, such a colloquy may not be indispensable, as long as the record contains some other affirmative showing to support the plea.” Here, as previously discussed, Defendant’s plea is
  • State v. Cook 82 So. 3d 1239 La. 2012
    (valid waiver of jury trial made by counsel in open court in defendant’s presence); (trial court may rely on counsel’s representation she had explained defendant’s rights to him; any other rule “would tend to undermine the relationship of trust that must necessarily exist between the bench and bar.”).
  • State v. Welch 87 So. 3d 119 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    “While it is preferable for the trial judge to conduct a colloquy with the defendant to ascertain the validity of the plea, such a colloquy may not be indispensable, as long as the record contains some other affirmative showing to support the plea.” State v. Gardette, 00-38 (La.App.
  • State v. Cummings 79 So. 3d 386 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
  • State v. Jones 9 So. 3d 893 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    State v. Hebert, 02-884 (La.App.
  • State v. Jackson 916 So. 2d 1015 La. 2005
  • State of Louisiana v. Ronald Spencer, Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
    Likewise, (emphasis added), we noted that a “colloquy may not be indispensable, as long as the record contains some other affirmative showing to support the plea.” Id.
  • State v. Spencer 888 So. 2d 1128 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
    Likewise, (emphasis added), we noted that a "colloquy may not be indispensable, as long as the record contains some other affirmative showing to support the plea."
  • State v. Pearson 861 So. 2d 283 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2003
  • State v. Vu 846 So. 2d 67 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2003
    State v. Gardette, 760 So.2d at 1264-1265 .
  • State v. Jenkins 846 So. 2d 778 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
    However, the supreme court further stated that " (emphasis added), we noted that a `colloquy may not be indispensable, as long as the record contains some other affirmative showing to support the plea.'" Id.
  • State v. Hebert 838 So. 2d 30 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2002
    State v. Nuccio, supra .
  • State v. Gardette 760 So. 2d 1262 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
    ‘While it is preferable for the trial judge to conduct a colloquy with the defen *1265 dant to ascertain the validity of the plea, such a colloquy may not be indispensable, as long as the record contains some other affirmative showing to support the plea.”
  • State v. Reed 762 So. 2d 218 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
    |4 our Supreme Court stated: “[wjhile it is preferable for the trial judge to conduct a colloquy with the defendant to ascertain the validity of the plea, such a colloquy may not be indispensable, as long as the record contains some other affirmative showing to support the plea.” In Halsell , the Court de
  • State v. Brown 750 So. 2d 262 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1999
  • State v. Mansion 733 So. 2d 1212 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1999
    However, "[w]hile it is preferable for the trial judge to conduct a colloquy with the defendant to ascertain the validity of the plea, such a colloquy may not be indispensable, as long as the record contains some other affirmative showing to support the plea."
  • State v. Stevison 721 So. 2d 843 La. 1998
    The court properly relied on those assurances, and then went over the form with the defendant before accepting his guilty plea.
  • Explained State v. Reynolds 716 So. 2d 485 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1998
  • State v. Johnson 713 So. 2d 579 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1998
    App. 4th Cir.1984), this Court, found that a well executed waiver of rights form could be used in conjunction with a transcript of the colloquy to prove that the defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his rights.
  • State v. Dejean 694 So. 2d 284 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1995
  • State v. Brown 651 So. 2d 929 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
  • State v. Shelton 621 So. 2d 769 La. 1993
    Likewise, (emphasis added), we noted that a "colloquy may not be indispensable, as long as the record contains some other affirmative showing to support the plea."
  • Explained State v. Barrio 608 So. 2d 641 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1992
  • State v. Martin 599 So. 2d 422 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1992
  • State v. Rogers 555 So. 2d 500 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1989
  • State v. Potts 554 So. 2d 117 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
    1709 , 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969)
  • State v. Mims 552 So. 2d 664 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1989
  • State v. Guillot 550 So. 2d 255 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
    4th Cir.1984) where the defense attorney made a written attestation.
  • State v. Collins 546 So. 2d 1246 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
    Boykin v. Alabama, supra
  • State v. Whitaker 543 So. 2d 1073 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1989
  • State v. Thomas 540 So. 2d 1150 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
    1709 , 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969)
  • State v. Hall 537 So. 2d 321 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
  • State v. Johnson 533 So. 2d 1288 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1988
  • State v. Wilkerson 533 So. 2d 136 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
    State v. Williams at 781-82 .
  • State v. Conley 531 So. 2d 1101 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
  • State v. Kelly 524 So. 2d 123 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1988
  • State v. White 517 So. 2d 461 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
  • State v. Graham 513 So. 2d 419 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
  • State v. Brown 490 So. 2d 601 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
  • State v. Payton 490 So. 2d 554 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1986
    This court, held that the record sufficiently showed that the defendant "knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his constitutional privilege against self-incrimination".
  • State v. Howard 487 So. 2d 464 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
    and the concurring opinions of those Justices in *468
  • State v. Williams 483 So. 2d 626 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
    the Supreme Court stated: “While it is preferable for the trial judge to conduct a colloquy with the defendant to ascertain the validity of the plea, such a colloquy may not be indispensable, as long as the record contains some other affirmative showing to support the plea.”
  • State v. Terrase 468 So. 2d 729 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1985
    (La.1981; State ex rel Jackson v. Henderson, 260 La.