Cited by

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

183 citing documents.

State v. Adamo 702 So. 2d 1 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
State v. Kendrick 699 So. 2d 424 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1997
State v. Jones 691 So. 2d 858 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1997
State v. Christmann 692 So. 2d 1155 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1997
art. 920 including a determination of whether the defendant was properly "Boykinized," and we find no errors which would warrant corrective action by this court.
State in Interest of JG 684 So. 2d 563 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
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. Dixon 685 So. 2d 310 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
5 Cir. 9/20/95) ; ; (La.App.
State v. Hapner 683 So. 2d 777 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
State v. Singleton 680 So. 2d 88 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1996
State v. Powell 674 So. 2d 1057 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1996
State ex rel. D.S. 673 So. 2d 1123 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1996
State v. Deroche 674 So. 2d 291 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
State ex rel. Harris v. State 667 So. 2d 1042 La. 1996
Where “there is a discrepancy between the minutes and the transcript, the transcript must prevail.” , 751 n. (“boilerplate type minutes of court” lack reliability and must yield to transcript).
State v. Miskel 668 So. 2d 1299 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1996
State v. Napier, 94-717 (La.App.
State v. Hale 652 So. 2d 118 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
State v. Napier 652 So. 2d 27 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
art. 920, and find none.
State v. Robinson 650 So. 2d 297 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1995
State v. Manson 650 So. 2d 327 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1995
State v. Craft 648 So. 2d 958 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
Further, where a defendant has entered a plea of guilty, the error patent review should include a determination of whether defendant was properly “Boykinized.”
State v. Franco 646 So. 2d 1043 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
Further, where a defendant has entered a plea of guilty, the error patent review should include a determination of whether the defendant was properly “Boykinized.”
State v. Ford 643 So. 2d 293 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994
State v. Hodges 641 So. 2d 728 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994
State v. Bailey 639 So. 2d 860 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1994
State v. Thomas 638 So. 2d 440 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
State v. Monroe 635 So. 2d 481 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994
State v. Garth 622 So. 2d 1189 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1993
State v. Orgeron 620 So. 2d 312 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1993
State v. Hall 616 So. 2d 290 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1993
State v. Sharkey 602 So. 2d 249 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1992
State v. Morrison 599 So. 2d 455 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1992
State v. Cook 591 So. 2d 1248 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1991
State v. Pittman 585 So. 2d 591 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1991
State v. Allen 571 So. 2d 758 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1990
State v. Combs 567 So. 2d 733 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1990
State v. Winston 567 So. 2d 1131 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1990
State v. McDonald 562 So. 2d 25 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1990
State v. Anderson 561 So. 2d 189 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
State v. Longo 560 So. 2d 530 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
State v. Schmidt 558 So. 2d 255 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1990
1709 , 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969)
State v. Weiland 556 So. 2d 175 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1990
State v. Head 556 So. 2d 161 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
State v. Williams 554 So. 2d 139 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1989
State v. Duhe 552 So. 2d 1315 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
1709 , 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969)
State v. Sepulvado 549 So. 2d 928 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
State v. Guillot 550 So. 2d 255 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
State v. Watts 550 So. 2d 711 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1989
State, in Interest of Lucas 543 So. 2d 634 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
in regard to the authority of an appellate court to recognize such a patent error in a criminal proceeding.
State v. Marceaux 542 So. 2d 1121 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
State, in Interest of Wilkerson 542 So. 2d 577 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
in regard to the authority of an appellate court to recognize such a patent error in a criminal proceeding.
State v. Kelly 537 So. 2d 811 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
State v. Miller 537 So. 2d 310 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
the defendant maintains that, if a plea is freely and voluntarily entered and the defendant understands the plea, the court should accept the plea, even though the defendant denies he committed the offense.