Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Shelton, 621 So. 2d 769.

391 citing documents.

State v. Stanfield 137 So. 3d 788 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
_Jj40ur Court has noted that Louisiana Supreme Court adopted a : If the defendant denies the multiple offender allegations then the burden is on the State to prove (1) the existence of a prior guilty plea, and (2) that defendant was represented by counsel when the plea was taken.
State v. Marlbrough 138 So. 3d 65 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
15:529.1, or in habitual offender DWI prosecutions, State v. Carlos, 98-1366 (La.7/7/99), .
State v. Morgan 134 So. 3d 1160 La. 2014
After recognizing the burden of showing a procedural irregularity then shifted to defendant under this Court’s -80 (La.1993), however, the court of appeal found the defendant showed such an irregularity.
State v. Gay 136 So. 3d 919 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2014
Defendant argued that prosecution by his former defense counselor was thus a procedural irregularity which needed a waiver from the defendant, and under State v. Shelton, 92-3070 (La.7/1/93), , the absence of a transcript for the purpose of showing the exact nature of the guilty plea meant that the carjacking offense could not be used.
State of Louisiana v. Fermichael Harrison La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
-80 (La.1993) (footnotes omitted) the supreme court explained: If the defendant denies the allegations of the bill of information, the burden is on the State to prove the existence of the prior guilty pleas and that defendant was represented by counsel when they were taken.
State v. Wiggins 139 So. 3d 1 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
State v. Boudreaux 131 So. 3d 342 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
15:529.1, or in habitual offender DWI prosecutions, State v. Carlos, 98-1366 (La.7/7/99), .
State v. Phillips 130 So. 3d 416 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Golden 126 So. 3d 829 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Baskin 129 So. 3d 614 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Henry 124 So. 3d 1108 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Sims 123 So. 3d 806 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
was more recently summarized by this court as follows: *809 If the defendant denies the multiple offender allegations then the burden is on the State to prove (1) the existence of a prior guilty plea, and (2) that defendant was represented by counsel when the plea was taken.
State v. Chaplain 114 So. 3d 1274 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
In Louisiana, the Supreme Court adopted a
State v. E.J.M. 119 So. 3d 648 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
When the State relies on a prior conviction based on a guilty plea to prove the defendant’s habitual offender status and the defendant denies the habitual offender bill, the State’s -80 (La.1993).
State v. Tatten 116 So. 3d 843 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
the Supreme Court stated that the “introduction of a transcript of the plea colloquy between the judge and the defendant which indicates that the plea was voluntary and which includes an articulated waiver of the three Boykin 2 rights would be sufficient to meet the State’s burden of proving through a
State v. Mendoza 113 So. 3d 288 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2013
In State v. Balsano, 09-0735, p. 8 (La.6/19/09), (per curiam), the Louisiana Supreme Court recognized that it has consistently allowed defendants to attack collaterally the validity of guilty pleas used to enhance their sentences, whether in habitual offender proceedings, or in habitual offender DWI prosecutions.
State v. Henderson 110 So. 3d 637 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2013
State v. Shelton, 92-8070 (La.7/1/93), .
State of Louisiana v. Michael W. Hood La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
-80 (La.1993) (footnotes omitted), the supreme court explained: If the defendant denies the allegations of the bill of information, the burden is on the State to prove the existence of the prior guilty pleas and that defendant was represented by counsel when they were taken.
State v. Dillon 101 So. 3d 970 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2012
which involved habitual offender proceedings.
State of Louisiana v. Marcus Gene Hollier La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
-80 (La.1993) (footnotes omitted).
State v. Rosales 94 So. 3d 36 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2012
15:529.1, -80 (La.1993), or in habitual offender D.W.I.
State v. Chinn 91 So. 3d 420 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
State v. Underdonk 92 So. 3d 369 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
State v. Jenkins 91 So. 3d 1075 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
The purpose of the rule of Carlos ( to the recidivist portions of the DWI statute) is to demarcate sharply the differences between direct review of a conviction resulting from a guilty plea, in which the ^appellate court may not presume a valid waiver of rights from a silent record, and a collateral attack on a final conviction used in a subs
State v. Besse 83 So. 3d 257 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State v. Suggs 81 So. 3d 815 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
-80 (La.1993); State v. Thomas, 06-654 (La.App.
State v. Lomax 81 So. 3d 788 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
1709 , 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969)
State v. Alvarez 78 So. 3d 265 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
-80 (La.1993); State v. Thomas, 06-654, p. 7 (La.App.
State v. Proctor 80 So. 3d 527 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2011
State v. Cummings 79 So. 3d 386 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State v. Jones 76 So. 3d 608 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
-780 (La.1993), the Louisiana Supreme Court stated: *614 If the defendant denies the allegations of the bill of information, the burden is on the State to prove the existence of the prior guilty pleas and that defendant was represented by counsel when they were taken.
State v. Douglas 72 So. 3d 392 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State v. Landfair 70 So. 3d 1061 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
4 Cir. 7/24/96) , , this Court discussed the procedural requirements for objecting to the sufficiency of State’s evidence regarding a defendant’s prior convictions: the Louisiana Legislature amended La.
State v. Causey 67 So. 3d 697 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
The Louisiana Supreme Court adopted a
State v. Bobo 77 So. 3d 1 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
our supreme court held: If the defendant denies the allegations of the bill of information, the burden is on the State to prove the existence of the prior guilty pleas and that defendant was represented by counsel when they were taken.
State v. Suggs 70 So. 3d 60 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State v. Stewart 65 So. 3d 771 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State v. Price 66 So. 3d 495 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
-77 (La.1993); State v. Jenkins, 977 So.2d at 147 .
State v. Howard 64 So. 3d 377 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State v. Robinson 63 So. 3d 1113 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
With respect to prior guilty pleas, the Louisiana Supreme Court held in State v. Shelton, 92-3070 (La.7/1/93), , that it is the state’s burden to prove the existence of the prior guilty plea and that defendant was represented by counsel.
State v. Hyman 62 So. 3d 146 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State of Louisiana v. Joseph Anthony Romero La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
-80 (La.1993) (footnote omitted).
State v. Welch 57 So. 3d 442 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
(1993); State v. Carlos, 98-1366 (La.7/7/99), .
State v. Payne 59 So. 3d 1287 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
-80 (La.1993); State v. Lanieux, 42 So.3d at 983 .
State v. Domino 60 So. 3d 659 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
15:529.1, or in habitual offender D.W.I.
State v. Fortune 54 So. 3d 761 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
*768 -780 (La.1993) as follows: If the defendant denies the allegations of the bill of information, the burden is on the State to prove the existence of the prior guilty pleas and that defendant was represented by counsel when they were taken.
State v. Wetzel 54 So. 3d 698 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
State v. Carlos extended the burden shifting principles applicable to multiple offenders, -80 (La.1993), to the recidivist provisions of the DWI statute.
State v. Green 52 So. 3d 253 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
The Louisiana Supreme Court explained the State’s burden in a -780 (La.1993), as follows: If the defendant denies the allegations of the bill of information, the burden is on the State to prove the existence of the prior guilty pleas and that defendant was represented by counsel when they were taken.
State v. Bruce 54 So. 3d 87 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
State v. Mosley 54 So. 3d 692 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
State v. Jenkins, 07-586, pp. 4-5, (La.App.