Cited by

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

101 citing documents.

State v. Windham 630 So. 2d 688 La. 1993
State v. Daniels 628 So. 2d 63 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
State v. Sharlow 621 So. 2d 858 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
State v. Wooders 615 So. 2d 936 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
15:529.1 D.(1) provides that upon the filing of a multiple offender bill of information, the trial court shall cause the defendant to be brought before it and “shall inform him of the allegation contained in the information and of his right to be tried as to the truth thereof according to law and shall require the offender to say whether the allegations are true.” -1185 (La.1983).
State v. Wheelwright 615 So. 2d 385 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1993
State v. Murphy 613 So. 2d 778 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
State v. Harris 612 So. 2d 280 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1992
State v. Gautreaux 607 So. 2d 1086 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1992
State v. Dearmas 606 So. 2d 567 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1992
State v. Breaux 599 So. 2d 917 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1992
[Emphasis added] -85 (La.1983), this section of the statute 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. Wright 598 So. 2d 1267 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1992
State v. Bravo 597 So. 2d 105 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
[Emphasis added] -85 (La.1983), this section of the statute was *108 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. Tate 593 So. 2d 864 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1992
State v. Smith 591 So. 2d 413 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
[Emphasis added] -85 (La.1983), this section of the statute 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. Carter 589 So. 2d 1212 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
State v. Terrebone 590 So. 2d 105 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
Although defendant is now procedurally barred from raising the issue of the sufficiency of the State’s proof of prior convictions for the multiple bill on appeal, 3 in the interest of judicial economy, and because the record discloses the evidence to decide the issue, we will address defendant’s claims.
State v. Noel 585 So. 2d 652 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1991
[Emphasis added] -85 (La.1983), this section of the statute 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. Moffett 572 So. 2d 705 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1990
State v. Delaune 572 So. 2d 652 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1990
State v. Edgar 570 So. 2d 88 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
State v. East 553 So. 2d 1046 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
the Supreme Court was faced with two arguments raised for the first time on appeal.
State v. Groce 553 So. 2d 888 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
State v. Grimmett 552 So. 2d 474 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
State v. Robinson 549 So. 2d 1282 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
State v. Johnson 548 So. 2d 1274 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
State v. Ray 547 So. 2d 1350 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
State v. Wheeler 547 So. 2d 12 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
State v. Jackson 527 So. 2d 1039 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1988
State v. Griffin 525 So. 2d 705 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
State v. Allen 526 So. 2d 438 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
to require that the defendant be advised of his right to a formal hearing on the multiple bill and his right to require the State to prove his identity as a multiple offender.
State v. Desmond 524 So. 2d 147 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1988
State v. Mallett 526 So. 2d 1194 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
the Louisiana Supreme Court emphasized the distinction between multiple offender proceedings and trials where guilt or innocence is adjudicated.
State v. Covington 522 So. 2d 1168 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1988
the court found that before a plea of guilty to a multiple bill can be said to be made knowingly and voluntarily, the colloquy between the trial judge and the defendant must show that the defendant was advised of his right to a formal hearing on the multiple bill and his right to require the State to prove
State v. Firmin 522 So. 2d 1181 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1988
the Louisiana Supreme Court found that before a plea of guilty to a multiple bill can be said to be made knowingly and voluntarily, the colloquy between the trial judge and the defendant must show that the defendant was advised of his right to a formal hearing on the multiple bill and his right to require t
State v. Ray 521 So. 2d 582 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
State v. Lapworth 517 So. 2d 485 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
State v. Perkins 517 So. 2d 314 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
State v. Moten 510 So. 2d 55 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
State v. Dunn 508 So. 2d 931 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
the Louisiana Supreme Court found that where the colloquy at the sentencing hearing established that the defendant was represented by counsel, advised of his right to a formal hearing and his right to have the state prove the issue of his identity, that this was sufficient compliance with the requirements
State v. Burge 506 So. 2d 759 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
State v. Coates 509 So. 2d 438 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
State v. Whittaker 496 So. 2d 1103 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1986
State v. Jones 497 So. 2d 15 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
State v. Glenn 493 So. 2d 806 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
State v. Williams 483 So. 2d 626 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
decided after State v. Robicheaux, supra.
State v. Smith 481 So. 2d 1388 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
State Ex Rel. Martin v. State 462 So. 2d 637 La. 1985
State v. Redfearn 441 So. 2d 200 La. 1983
State v. Vincent 439 So. 2d 1124 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1983
972 , (1950)] (although defendant there was not represented by counsel), that defendant is correct.
State v. Walker 432 So. 2d 1057 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983