DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

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

391 citing documents.

  • State v. Randall 51 So. 3d 799 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    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 as follows: the Louisiana Legislature amended La.
  • State v. Moody 38 So. 3d 451 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
  • State v. Jones 35 So. 3d 1162 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    State v. Zachary, 01-3191, p. 3 (La.10/25/02), (per curiam), -80 (La.1993); State v. Fleming, 04-1218, p. 4 (La.App.
  • State v. Woods 38 So. 3d 391 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    Jones , 08-466 at 7, 998 So.2d at 183 .
  • State v. Lane 38 So. 3d 413 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2010
  • State v. Lanieux 42 So. 3d 979 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
  • State v. Jones 33 So. 3d 306 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
  • State v. Sandoval 32 So. 3d 914 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. Turner 32 So. 3d 277 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2010
    the Louisiana Supreme Court explained the process of proving prior felony convictions in habitual offender proceedings under La.
  • State v. Otero 31 So. 3d 1125 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
  • State v. Sopczak 25 So. 3d 250 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
  • State v. Wallace 26 So. 3d 176 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2009
    15:529.1 : 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. Balsano 11 So. 3d 475 La. 2009
    15:529.1, 7 applications later described by the Court as “an aberration,” n. 11 (La.1993), has now become the rule for collateral attacks in post-conviction proceedings for all final guilty pleas no matter when they occur.
  • State v. Jackson 4 So. 3d 131 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    Therefore, as conceded by the State, the State only proved that the defendant was a second offender, -780 (La.1993) (discussing State’s burden of proof in multiple bill proceedings), and the trial court erred by finding him to be a third offender and sentencing him as such.
  • State v. VanBuren 3 So. 3d 552 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
    -780 (La.1993), the Supreme Court stated: 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. Lemon 3 So. 3d 20 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
    4 -80 (La.1993); State v. Thomas, 06-654, p. 7 (La.App.
  • State v. Capers 998 So. 2d 885 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2008
    15:529.1 : 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. Zachary 995 So. 2d 631 La. 2008
    Thereafter, this court granted the State's writ, of showing that the defendant had entered an informed and voluntary no contest plea in Florida to a crime that is the equivalent of a felony offense in Louisiana, and remanded the matter.
  • State v. Tassin 998 So. 2d 278 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
    In State v. Carlos, 98-1366, pp. 6-7 (La.7/7/99), (footnotes omitted), the Louisiana Supreme Court discussed the burdens of proof in recidivism proceedings as follows: In Shelton [ v. Shelton, ], this Court recognized that Boykin [ v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 , 89 S.Ct.
  • State v. Evans 998 So. 2d 197 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
    le, a guilty plea form, a minute entry, an "imperfect" transcript, or any combination thereof, the judge then must weigh the evidence submitted by the defendant and by the State to determine whether the State has met its burden *203 of proving that the defendant's prior guilty plea was informed and voluntary, and made with an articulated waiver of the three Boykin rights.[ [4] ] -80 (La.1993)(footnotes omitted).
  • State v. Jones 998 So. 2d 178 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2008
  • State v. Massie 986 So. 2d 254 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
  • State v. Gullette 975 So. 2d 753 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2008
    [6] The minutes for the 1999 the existence of this prior guilty plea and that defendant was represented by counsel when it was entered.
  • State v. Jenkins 977 So. 2d 142 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2008
    State v. Muhammad, 03-419, p. 3 (La.App.
  • State v. Calhoun 974 So. 2d 805 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2008
    Alternatively, the defendant argues that if the state met its initial burden, then the *813 (La.
  • State v. Fields 973 So. 2d 973 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2008
    15:529.1 : 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. Brister 966 So. 2d 1249 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2007
  • State v. Clesi 967 So. 2d 488 La. 2007
    of showing an infringement of his rights in the taking of the guilty pleas.
  • State v. Braziel 968 So. 2d 853 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2007
    -780 (La.1993)(footnotes omitted); State v. Zeigler, 41,617 (La.App.2d Cir.12/20/06), .
  • State of Louisiana v. Frederick James Collette La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
    -80 (La.1993) (footnotes omitted), the supreme court discussed the burden of proof at habitual offender hearings 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
  • State v. Brown 966 So. 2d 727 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2007
    -780 (La.1993)(footnotes omitted); State v. Zeigler, 41,617 (La.App.
  • State v. Henry 966 So. 2d 692 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2007
    State v. Zeigler, 41,617 (La.App.2d Cir.12/20/06)
  • State v. Dudley 984 So. 2d 11 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2007
    (5) The trial court erred in finding defendant to be a
  • State v. Bowers 965 So. 2d 959 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2007
    Ms. Bowers argued that the Texas minutes were not a
  • State v. Barrett 963 So. 2d 1072 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2007
    Barrett argues that a defendant is entitled to a transcript of a plea hearing to use in proving that his guilty plea was not made knowingly and voluntarily.
  • State of Louisiana v. Thomas Swaggart La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
  • State v. Swaggart 956 So. 2d 707 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2007
  • State v. Wilson 956 So. 2d 41 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2007
    In addition, -780 (La.1993), where the Court discussed the burdens of proof in multiple bill proceedings: 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. Thomas 951 So. 2d 372 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2007
  • State v. Gray 948 So. 2d 335 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2007
    the supreme court explained the process of proving prior felony convictions in habitual offender proceedings under La.
  • State v. Alo 948 So. 2d 275 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2006
    In its writ application, -780 (La.1993), because the evidence submitted at the hearing was sufficient to prove the existence of the Hawaii guilty plea and that the defendant was represented by counsel.
  • State v. Darensbourg 948 So. 2d 1128 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2006
    State v. Zachary, 01-3191 (La.10/25/02), , -780 (La.1993).
  • State v. Dozier 949 So. 2d 502 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2006
    -780 (La.1993), the Court set forth the burdens of proof in multiple bill proceedings: 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. Zeigler 945 So. 2d 946 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
    -780 (La.1993), the Louisiana Supreme Court explained the process of proving prior felony convictions in habitual offender proceedings under La.
  • State v. Morgan 948 So. 2d 199 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2006
    The state responds that defendant offered no affirmative evidence at the multiple bill hearing to establish an infringement of his rights or a procedural irregularity and, therefore
  • State v. Jones 940 So. 2d 131 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
    -780 (La.1993), the Louisiana Supreme Court explained the shifting burden of proof in multiple offender hearings 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
  • State v. Davis 937 So. 2d 5 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
    [2] the state's initial burden was to prove the existence of the prior guilty pleas and that defendant was represented by counsel when they were taken.
  • State v. Shaw 939 So. 2d 519 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
    215:529.1 or State v. Shelton, 92-3070 (La.7/1/93), .
  • State v. James 938 So. 2d 1191 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
    Secondly, by providing proof that the prior guilty pleas were voluntary and that he was represented by counsel.
  • State v. King 935 So. 2d 354 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006