Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Godejohn, 425 So. 2d 750.

183 citing documents.

State Of Louisiana v. Scott Eric Houston La. 2022
See State v. Godejohn , (La.
State in the Interest of J.J.M. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
if a trial court fails to inform a defendant of his right to a jury trial, of his right to confront his accusers, and of his privilege against self-incrimination, the plea does not meet the due process requirements of Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 89 S.Ct.
State ex rel. J.J.M. 207 So. 3d 609 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
if a trial court fails to inform a defendant of his right to a jury trial, of his right to confront his accusers, and of his privilege against self-incrimination, the plea does not meet the due process requirements of Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 , 89 S.Ct.
State v. SEDE 8 So. 3d 702 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
In Guzman , the supreme court expressly overruled its “ ( (La.
State v. Clanton 958 So. 2d 1179 La. 2007
State v. Robinson 943 So. 2d 371 La. 2006
In State v. Guzman, 99-1528, p. 6 (La.5/16/00), , and thereby made clear that a guilty plea colloquy is not part of the record for purposes of error patent review.
State v. Watson 817 So. 2d 81 La. 2002
State v. Jones 778 So. 2d 1131 La. 2001
In State v. Guzman, 99-1528, p. 6 (La.5/16/00), , and made clear that a guilty plea colloquy is not part of the record for purposes of error patent review.
State v. Richard 769 So. 2d 1177 La. 2000
In State v. Guzman, 99-1528, p. 6 (La.5/16/00), , *1178 1162, and thereby made clear that a guilty plea colloquy is not part of the record for purposes of error patent review.
State v. Brooks 769 So. 2d 1242 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2000
State v. Bentel 769 So. 2d 1247 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
State v. Simmons 767 So. 2d 860 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
State v. Jackson 767 So. 2d 848 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2000
State v. Filer 762 So. 2d 1080 La. 2000
In State v. Guzman, 99-1528, p. 6 (La.5/16/00), ___ So.2d ___, 2000 WL 631266 , and thereby made clear that a guilty plea colloquy is not part of the record for purposes of error patent review.
State v. Chess 762 So. 2d 1279 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2000
State v. Perkins 762 So. 2d 67 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2000
State v. Neal 762 So. 2d 281 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2000
State v. King 761 So. 2d 791 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2000
State v. Barroso 762 So. 2d 206 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2000
State v. Ross 760 So. 2d 1256 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2000
Overruled State v. Guzman 769 So. 2d 1158 La. 2000
In so holding, (), wherein this Court held a review of the plea colloquy for errors is subject to error patent review.
State v. Isenogle 761 So. 2d 95 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
State v. Lemons 760 So. 2d 1152 La. 2000
State v. Simmons 759 So. 2d 940 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
State v. Wickem 759 So. 2d 961 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2000
State v. Fish 759 So. 2d 937 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2000
State v. Joseph 759 So. 2d 136 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2000
State v. Ballay 757 So. 2d 115 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2000
State v. Robertson 756 So. 2d 1148 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2000
State v. Smith 757 So. 2d 74 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2000
State v. Taylor 757 So. 2d 63 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2000
State v. Villarreal 759 So. 2d 126 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2000
State v. Norman 756 So. 2d 525 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2000
State v. Young 751 So. 2d 364 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
5 Cir.1990); and, and we note the following error.
State v. Brown 750 So. 2d 262 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1999
State v. Russell 750 So. 2d 1074 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
State v. Stec 749 So. 2d 784 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1999
State v. Dauzart 749 So. 2d 806 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1999
State v. McKinney 749 So. 2d 716 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1999
State v. Dereyna 750 So. 2d 215 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
State v. Blanchard 749 So. 2d 19 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1999
State v. Boles 750 So. 2d 1059 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1999
State v. Henderson 746 So. 2d 173 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1999
5th Cir.1991), writ denied
State v. Bowers 746 So. 2d 82 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1999
State v. Counts 747 So. 2d 617 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
State v. Reynold, 98-170 (La.
State v. Bates 742 So. 2d 1004 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
State v. Norwood 742 So. 2d 993 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
State v. Hollins 742 So. 2d 671 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1999
5th Cir. 1990) *688 (La.1983).
State v. Webber 742 So. 2d 952 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1999
State v. Wilson 742 So. 2d 957 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1999
5 Cir.1990); and we note that in the instant case the trial judge failed to observe the twenty-four hour delay mandated by LSA-C.Cr.P.