Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Martin, 427 So. 2d 1182.

101 citing documents.

State of Louisiana v. Colby James Kinsey A/K/A Colby J. Kinsey La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2020
However, in Harris, the supreme court also explained that: Nevertheless, multiple offender proceedings “simply should not be equated (at least for purposes of determining the validity of an admission) to trials of guilt or innocence.”
State of Louisiana v. Bishop Slade Dubroc La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2018
However, in Harris, the supreme court also explained that: Nevertheless, multiple offender proceedings “simply should not be equated (at least for purposes of determining the validity of an admission) to trials of guilt or innocence.”
State of Louisiana v. Bishop Slade Dubroc La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2018
However, in Harris, the supreme court also explained that: Nevertheless, multiple offender proceedings “simply should not be equated (at least for purposes of determining the validity of an admission) to trials of guilt or innocence.”
State v. Dubroc 261 So. 3d 813 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
State v. Dubroc 261 So. 3d 832 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
State v. Martin , , 1185 (La.1983).
State of Louisiana v. Cleveland Troy Bias La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
However, in Harris, the supreme court also explained that: Nevertheless, multiple offender proceedings ―simply should not be equated (at least for purposes of determining the validity of an admission) to trials of guilt or innocence.‖
State of Louisiana v. Justin James Badeaux La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
Nevertheless, multiple offender proceedings “simply should not be equated (at least for purposes of determining the validity of an admission) to trials of guilt or innocence.”
State v. Moore 90 So. 3d 384 La. 2012
This Court has “declined to adopt as a constitutional prerequisite to a valid admission of identity at a multiple offender proceeding a procedure analogous to the Boykin colloquy which must accompany a valid plea of guilty.” State v. Harris, 95-0900, p. 1 (La.5/19/95), ( n. 7 (La.1983) (“With deference to courts which have adopted an approach to the admission of identity at a recidivist or habitual offender proceeding which is analogous to that which requires a ‘Boykin’ examination prior to a gu
State of Louisiana v. Lionel Paul Dugas La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
State of Louisiana v. Richard D. Jasper La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
The court in Johnson, further stated La.R.S.
State v. Jasper 75 So. 3d 984 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
The court in Johnson , further stated La.R.S.
State of Louisiana v. Derrick Dewayne Moore La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
The court in Johnson, further stated La.
STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS OTERREL J. BOUTTE AKA O'TERREL BOUTTE, AKA O'TERRELL BOUTTE, ETC. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
Nevertheless, multiple offender proceedings “simply should not be equated (at least for purposes of determining the validity of an admission) to trials of guilt or innocence.”
State v. Boutte 27 So. 3d 1111 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
Nevertheless, multiple offender proceedings “simply should not be equated (at least for purposes of determining the validity of an admission) to trials of guilt or innocence.”
State v. Sopczak 25 So. 3d 250 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
The court in Johnson, (La.
State of Louisiana v. Carl Anthony Gobert La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
2 Martin, further stated La.R.S.
State v. Gobert 24 So. 3d 1013 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
The court in Johnson , further stated La.
State of Louisiana v. Gregory John Ruiz La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
The court in Johnson, further stated La.R.S.
State v. Ruiz 3 So. 3d 671 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
The court in Johnson , further stated La.R.S.
State v. Baylor 998 So. 2d 800 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
The court in Johnson , further stated La.R.S.
State of Louisiana v. Robert Lee Samuel La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
The court in Johnson, further stated La.R.S.
State of Louisiana v. Tyrone Smith La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
State v. Samuel 984 So. 2d 256 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
The court in Johnson , further stated La.R.S.
State v. Schnyder 937 So. 2d 396 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2006
State ex rel. Treadaway v. State 930 So. 2d 4 La. 2006
Distinguished State v. Tomlinson 916 So. 2d 1200 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2005
in which the Supreme Court concluded that a defendant was required to object at the habitual offender hearing to the failure of the record of a predicate offense to reflect the presence of counsel in order to raise the issue on appeal.
State v. Davis 859 So. 2d 776 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2003
State v. Munson 782 So. 2d 17 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2001
State v. Musgrove 774 So. 2d 1155 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
State v. Jones 777 So. 2d 563 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
State v. Fletcher 776 So. 2d 1240 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2000
State v. McGee 757 So. 2d 50 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2000
State v. Bates 742 So. 2d 1004 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
State v. Biglane 738 So. 2d 630 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1999
State v. Ursin 720 So. 2d 1248 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1998
State v. Coleman 720 So. 2d 381 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1998
The court in Johnson , further stated La.R.S.
State v. Manning 715 So. 2d 668 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1998
State v. Kittlin 695 So. 2d 1137 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1997
The court in Johnson , further stated that La.R.S.
State v. Stewart 712 So. 2d 106 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1997
State v. Monterroso 685 So. 2d 249 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1996
State v. Spencer 683 So. 2d 1326 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
State v. Payne 677 So. 2d 527 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
State v. Smith 672 So. 2d 211 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
State v. Holmes 670 So. 2d 573 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1996
State v. Brown 665 So. 2d 477 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1995
State v. Robinson 665 So. 2d 451 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1995
the above was interpreted to require that the defendant be advised of his right to a formal hearing and to have the state prove its case.
State v. Hall 654 So. 2d 1085 La. 1995
State v. Harris 654 So. 2d 680 La. 1995
State v. Jones 653 So. 2d 746 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1995
State v. Youngblood 647 So. 2d 1388 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994