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. Mead 927 So. 2d 1259 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
    the state has the initial burden to prove the existence of the prior guilty pleas and that defendant *1266 was represented by counsel when they were taken.
  • State v. Lane 927 So. 2d 659 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
    the Louisiana Supreme Court discussed the state's burden of proof in a habitual offender proceeding 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 the defendant was represented by counsel wh
  • State v. Lawrence 925 So. 2d 727 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
    The burden of proving the validity of a prior guilty plea in a : 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. Houston 925 So. 2d 690 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
    the state met its burden when it showed that the appellant was the same person who entered the guilty plea and that he was represented by counsel during that proceeding.
  • State v. Duplechin 922 So. 2d 655 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2006
    In State v. Carlos, 98-1366 (La.7/7/99), , the Louisiana Supreme Court extended the burden-shifting principles applicable to habitual offenders, to the recidivist provisions of the DWI statute.
  • State v. Qualls 921 So. 2d 226 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
    State v. Callier, 39,650 (La.App.2d Cir.7/27/05)
  • State v. Taylor 920 So. 2d 287 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2005
  • State v. Tomlinson 916 So. 2d 1200 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2005
    -780 (La.1993), regarding the North Carolina guilty plea.
  • State v. Watson 911 So. 2d 396 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2005
    In Carlos , apply to the DWI provisions found in LSA-R.S.
  • State v. Pugh 911 So. 2d 898 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2005
  • State v. Lee 909 So. 2d 672 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2005
  • State v. Callier 909 So. 2d 23 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2005
    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. Smith 913 So. 2d 836 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2005
    -780 (La.1993): 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. Wise 905 So. 2d 387 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
    State v. Carlos extended the burden shifting principles applicable to multiple offenders, -780 (La.1993), to the recidivist provisions of the DWI statute.
  • State v. Fleming 902 So. 2d 451 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2005
  • State v. Guillard 902 So. 2d 1061 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2005
  • State v. Washington 895 So. 2d 691 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2005
    the Louisiana Supreme Court discussed the state’s burden of proof in a habitual offender proceeding as follows: *694 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 the defendant was represented by couns
  • State v. Richardson 896 So. 2d 257 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2005
    State v. Warfield, 37,616 (La.App.2d Cir.10/29/03), , quoting, (footnotes omitted).
  • State v. Perez 895 So. 2d 50 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2005
    [3] State v. Carlos extended the burden shifting principles applicable to multiple offenders, to the recidivist provisions of the DWI statute.
  • State v. LeBlanc 897 So. 2d 736 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
  • State of Louisiana v. Ronald Spencer, Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
    4 the court considered the matter again in reference to the validity of the underlying guilty pleas used as a basis for a habitual offender bill.
  • State v. Spencer 888 So. 2d 1128 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
    the court considered the matter again in reference to the validity of the underlying guilty pleas used as a basis for a habitual offender bill.
  • State v. Johnson 887 So. 2d 751 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2004
  • State v. Douglas 888 So. 2d 982 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2004
    State v. Warfield, 37,616 (La.App.2d Cir.10/29/03), , quoting, (footnotes omitted).
  • State v. Hargrove 886 So. 2d 1192 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2004
    Further, the Louisiana 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 the defendant was represented by counsel when they were taken.
  • State v. Collins 886 So. 2d 1149 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2004
    [5] which involved habitual offender proceedings.
  • State v. Francois 884 So. 2d 658 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2004
    the Louisiana Supreme Court reviewed the jurisprudence regarding the burden of proof in habitual offender proceedings; the Court held it is proper to assign a burden of proof to a defendant who contests the validity of his guilty plea.
  • State v. Brewer 880 So. 2d 1005 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2004
    In State v. Shelton, 92-3070 (La.7/1/93), , the Louisiana Supreme Court held that when a defendant in a habitual offender proceeding denies the allegations of the prior offense, the defendant has the burden of showing an infringement of his rights or a procedural irregularity.
  • State v. Deville 879 So. 2d 689 La. 2004
    for habitual offender proceedings under La.R.S.
  • State v. Muhammad 880 So. 2d 29 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2004
  • State v. Uloho 875 So. 2d 918 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2004
    State v. Zachary, 01-3191 (La.10/25/02), , -80 (La.1993).
  • State v. Deville 879 So. 2d 204 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
    In State v. Carlos , the Louisiana Supreme Court extended the burden-shifting principles for habitual offender proceedings, to the recidivist portions of the DWI statute.
  • State v. Vaughn 879 So. 2d 772 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
    In Carlos , the court held that the | ^ are applicable to multiple-offense DWI cases.
  • State v. Townsend 874 So. 2d 152 La. 2004
    (1993), also carried the defendant's burden to make an "affirmative showing" of a procedural defect in his guilty plea in Texas because the documents omitted any mention of advice with respect to the privilege against self-incrimination.
  • State v. Haley 873 So. 2d 747 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2004
  • State v. Tilmon 870 So. 2d 607 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2004
    State v. Wade, 36,295 (La.App.2d Cir.10/23/02), , writ denied, 02-2875 (La.04/04/03), .
  • State of Louisiana v. Fred Christopher Beverly La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
    The supreme court stated: In [State v.] Shelton[, ], this Court recognized that Boykin does not require that the entire burden be placed on the prosecution in a recidivism proceeding.
  • State v. Beverly 867 So. 2d 107 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
    The supreme court stated: In [ State v. ] Shelton [, ], this Court recognized that Boykin does not require that the entire burden be placed on the prosecution in a recidivism proceeding.
  • State v. Frisella 868 So. 2d 871 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2004
    In State v. Carlos, 98-1366 (La.7/7/99), , the Louisiana Supreme Court extended the burden-shifting principles applicable to habitual offenders, -780 (La.1993), to the recidivist provisions of the DWI statute.
  • State v. Nabak 864 So. 2d 758 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2003
    [3] The Louisiana Supreme Court, in State v. Carlos, 738 So.2d at 559, applied to the recidivist portion *761 of the DWI statute, LSA-R.S.
  • State v. Warfield 859 So. 2d 307 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2003
    Specifically, because the certified copies of the district court minutes of the prior felonies introduced into evidence did not show that he actually waived his Boykin rights.
  • State v. Townsend 859 So. 2d 885 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2003
    State v. Shelton (La.1993), .
  • State v. Wuneburger 860 So. 2d 78 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2003
    App. 5 Cir.8/31/99), , writ denied, 99-2853 (La.1/5/01), , this Court, citing, summarized the burden of proof in habitual offender proceedings as follows: Where a prior conviction resulted from a guilty plea, the State must show that the defendant was advised of his constitutional rights and that he knowingly waived those rights prior to the guilty plea, as required by Boykin v. Alaba
  • State v. Granier 857 So. 2d 1176 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2003
    In State v. Carlos, 98-1366 (La.7/7/99), , the Supreme Court extended the burden-shifting principles applicable to habitual offenders, -780 (La.1993), to the recidivist provisions of the DWI statute.
  • State v. Lyles 858 So. 2d 35 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2003
    5th Cir.9/1/99), , writ denied, 99-2853 (La.1/5/01), this Court, (La.
  • State v. Jarrow 857 So. 2d 12 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2003
    at the earlier multiple bill hearings, it is clear that the April 30, 1979 guilty plea transcript was not part of the record in either case.
  • State v. Washington 852 So. 2d 1206 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2003
  • State v. Jones 850 So. 2d 782 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
    -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. Williams 849 So. 2d 799 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2003
    Now he does not argue that the documentation submitted at the hearing was inadequate to meet the State's burden of proof of the multiple bill, nor that the documentation would show that he was not adequately advised of his rights as per Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 , 89 S.Ct.
  • State v. Holloway 847 So. 2d 200 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2003
    State v. Robinson, 34,383 (La.