DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

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. Allen 788 So. 2d 62 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
    -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. Dean 789 So. 2d 602 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
    the Louisiana Supreme Court reviewed the jurisprudence concerning the burden of proof in habitual offender proceedings and found it proper to assign a burden of proof to a defendant who contests the validity of his guilty plea.
  • State v. Sanders 784 So. 2d 19 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2001
    1709 , 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969); State v. Bailey, 713 So.2d at 610 .
  • State v. Williams 781 So. 2d 673 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
    State v. Jackson, 31,433 (La.App.2d Cir.1/20/99), , writ denied, 99-2250 (La.12/17/99), ; La.
  • State v. Bugbee 781 So. 2d 748 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
    State v. Jackson, 31,433 (La.App.2d Cir.1/20/99), , writ denied, 99-2250 (La.12/17/99), .
  • State v. Robinson 780 So. 2d 1213 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
    (1993), our supreme court, in light of Parke v. Raley, 506 U.S. 20 , 113 S.Ct.
  • State v. Williams 781 So. 2d 682 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
    State v. Shelton, *690 State v. Jackson, 31,433 (La.App.2d Cir.1/20/99), , writ denied, 99-2250 (La.12/17/99), ; La.
  • State v. Lacy 782 So. 2d 47 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
    -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. Richardson 780 So. 2d 1103 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
    -780 (La.1993), the Louisiana Supreme Court revised the previous scheme of burdens of proof in habitual offender proceedings, 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 represente
  • State v. Theriot 782 So. 2d 1078 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2001
    In State v. Carlos, 98-1366 (La.7/7/99), , to the recidivist provisions of the DWI statute.
  • State v. Harris 782 So. 2d 1055 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2001
    [8] State v. Hollins, 99-278 at p. 21, 742 So.2d at 685; State v. Winfrey, 97-427, pp. 29-30 (La.
  • State v. Powell 779 So. 2d 67 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
  • State v. Briscoe 779 So. 2d 30 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2001
    -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. Kreger 774 So. 2d 1273 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
    In State v. Carlos, 98-1366, pp. 6-7 (La.7/7/99), , are applicable to the recidivist provisions of the DWI statute.
  • State v. English 774 So. 2d 1186 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
  • State v. Weaver 775 So. 2d 613 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2000
    -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. Jason 779 So. 2d 865 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2000
  • State v. Bryant 775 So. 2d 596 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
    -780 (La.1993), a case predating La.C.Cr.P.
  • State v. Johnson 780 So. 2d 403 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
  • State v. Green 779 So. 2d 835 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2000
    As to the proof of voluntariness, , (La.1993), then cites prior law relative to the sufficiency of various forms of proof on this issue.
  • State v. Pendleton 776 So. 2d 1234 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2000
    In State v. Carlos, 98-1366 (La.7/7/99), , to the recidivist provisions of the DWI statute.
  • State v. Crowell 773 So. 2d 871 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2000
    -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. Daniels 773 So. 2d 229 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
    reviewed the jurisprudence concerning the burden of proof in habitual offender proceedings and found it proper to assign a *231 burden of proof to a defendant who contests the validity of his guilty plea.
  • State v. Odom 772 So. 2d 281 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
  • State v. Davenport 771 So. 2d 837 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
  • State v. Casse 772 So. 2d 801 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2000
    In State v. Carlos, 98-1366 (La.7/7/99), , as applied to multiple offender proceedings, should be extended to the recidivist portions of the DWI statute.
  • State v. Burnett 768 So. 2d 783 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
  • State v. Naquin 769 So. 2d 1170 La. 2000
    In State v. Carlos, 98-1366, p. 7 (La.7/7/99), , for multiple offender proceedings conducted under La.Rev.Stat.
  • State v. Chisolm 771 So. 2d 205 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2000
    The trial court, in its judgment on the motion to quash, noted that, when the appellant objects to the validity of a predicate plea, the State meets its burden of proof if it introduces a "perfect" transcript of the colloquy between the judge and the defendant, in which the defendant is advised of and waives his three Boykin rights, the right to trial by jury, the right agai
  • State v. McCurtis 769 So. 2d 150 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
  • State v. Mayo 770 So. 2d 462 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
    |4 the Louisiana Supreme Court reviewed the jurisprudence concerning the burden of proof in habitual offender proceedings and found it proper to assign a burden of proof to a defendant who contests the validity of his guilty plea.
  • State v. Frickey 769 So. 2d 791 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2000
    5 Cir. 2/29/00), , citing State v. Carlos, supra
  • State v. Dunn 769 So. 2d 673 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
    The Louisiana Supreme Court adopted a
  • State v. Toca 769 So. 2d 665 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
  • State v. Madison 768 So. 2d 593 La. 2000
    Once the state carries its initial burden of proving the existence of the prior guilty pleas and that the defendant was represented by *594 counsel when he entered the pleas, the burden of production shifts to the defendant to show affirmatively “an infringement of his rights or a procedural irregularity in the taking of the plea.” (footnote omitted), This court has stressed that neither Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 , 89 S.Ct.
  • State v. Marshall 774 So. 2d 244 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2000
    -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. Loupe 767 So. 2d 884 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2000
    In State v. Carlos, 98-1366 (La.7/7/99), , to the recidivist provisions of the DWI statute.
  • State v. Simmons 767 So. 2d 918 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
    5 Cir. 11/16/94) , , writ denied, 94-3076 (La.4/7/95), , for burdens of proof in habitual offender proceedings: 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. Jolly 768 So. 2d 165 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
    5 Cir. 8/31/99) , -685 , this court, 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. Jackson 767 So. 2d 848 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2000
  • State v. Bass 767 So. 2d 772 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2000
  • State v. Walker 773 So. 2d 735 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
    -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. Perkins 762 So. 2d 67 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2000
    5th Cir. 11/16/94), ; writ denied, 94-3076 (La.4/7/95)
  • State v. Lowry 762 So. 2d 1275 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2000
    In State v. Carlos, 98-1366 (La.7/7/99), , the Supreme Court extended the burden-shifting principles for habitual offender proceedings, to the recidivist portions of the DWI statute.
  • State v. Coleman 762 So. 2d 1134 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
    the court stated the following: 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. Neal 762 So. 2d 281 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2000
    When a predicate conviction was obtained pursuant to a plea of guilty
  • State v. Gardette 760 So. 2d 1262 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
    In Carlos , the Louisiana Supreme’ to the multiple offender portions' of the DWI statute, La.
  • State v. Phillips 762 So. 2d 172 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
    It further contends the predicate convictions conform to the dictates of State v. Carlos, 98-1366 (La.7/7/99), , are applicable to predicate convictions used for DWI enhancement.
  • State v. Boles 763 So. 2d 74 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2000
  • State v. Dickerson 760 So. 2d 573 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000