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. Prater 762 So. 2d 82 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. Wolfe 761 So. 2d 596 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2000
  • State v. Young 769 So. 2d 12 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
    : We have consistently held that in order to enhance a sentence with a prior guilty plea, the State bears the burden of proving the guilty plea was constitutionally taken, and, to meet its burden, the State must introduce a contemporaneous record of a Boykin examination which demonstrates the guilty plea was
  • State v. Stokes 759 So. 2d 980 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2000
    Where the prior conviction was obtained pursuant to a plea of guilty
  • State v. Everett 761 So. 2d 58 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
    and the subsequent amendment to the Habitual Offender Law.
  • State v. Drenning 767 So. 2d 45 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
    In State v. Carlos, 98-1366 (La.7/7/99), , the court made applicable to DWI cases, which set out the State’s burden of proving the validity of prior guilty pleas for purposes of sentence enhancement under the Habitual Offender Law, La.
  • State v. McGee 758 So. 2d 338 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2000
    It is further argued that the adjudication is invalid because Mr. McGee received ineffective assistance from his trial attorney, who not only acquiesced in the denial of the request for a Boykin transcript but also failed to offer alternative evidence, to challenge the adjudication.
  • State v. Walker 772 So. 2d 127 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
    However, the panel found the state had “not been afforded an opportunity to rebut the defendant’s proof [that his pleas were infirm] by introducing a ‘perfect’ transcript or other evidence as described in”
  • State v. Fitch 753 So. 2d 429 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
    apply to the recidivist portions of the DWI statute, La.
  • State v. Stewart 754 So. 2d 395 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
    apply to the recidivist portions of the DWI statute, La.
  • State v. Ballay 757 So. 2d 115 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2000
    Where the prior conviction was obtained pursuant to a plea of guilty, -780 (La.1993).
  • State v. Manning 758 So. 2d 883 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
    In State v. Carlos, 98-1366 (La.7/7/99), , [^covering multiple offender proceedings, should be extended to the recidivist portions of the DWI statute.
  • State v. Boudreaux 756 So. 2d 505 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2000
    The Carlos court extended the burden-shifting principles for habitual offender proceedings, to the recidivist portions of the DWI statute.
  • State v. Alexander 753 So. 2d 933 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. Perkins 751 So. 2d 403 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2000
    App. 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. Drummer 750 So. 2d 360 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
    State v. Guy, 97-1387, p. 12 (La.App.
  • State v. Carthan 765 So. 2d 357 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1999
    775 n. 12 (La.1993), the supreme court defined a "perfect" transcript as one "which reflects a voluntary, informed, and articulated waiver of the three specific rights mentioned in Boykin.
  • State v. Marshall 753 So. 2d 867 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
  • State v. Moten 748 So. 2d 1210 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1999
    In State v. Carlos, 98-1366 (La.7/7/99), , the Louisiana Supreme Court was called upon to decide whether the burden-shifting principles for habitual offender proceedings, should be extended to the recidivist portions of the DWI statute.
  • State v. Washington 747 So. 2d 1191 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
    the legislature amended La.
  • State v. Washington 747 So. 2d 1191 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
    the legislature amended La.
  • State v. Powell 746 So. 2d 825 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
  • State v. Crosby 748 So. 2d 502 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
    the Legislature amended La.
  • State v. Crawford 749 So. 2d 728 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
  • State v. Flanagan 744 So. 2d 718 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
    the supreme court set forth the scheme for assigning the burden of proof in habitual offender 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 the defendant was represented by counsel when th
  • State v. Owens 763 So. 2d 628 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
    to show some infringement of his rights or procedural irregularity in the taking of his guilty plea to the manslaughter charge.
  • State v. Pickett 746 So. 2d 185 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1999
    [2] to the multiple offender portions of the DWI statute: [W]hen a defendant denies the allegations contained in the bill of information in a habitual offender proceeding, 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
  • State v. Walker 747 So. 2d 133 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
  • State v. Hollins 742 So. 2d 671 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1999
    1709 , 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969); State v. Bailey, 713 So.2d at 610 .
  • State v. Greenwell 746 So. 2d 29 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
  • State v. Carlos 738 So. 2d 556 La. 1999
    [*] should be extended to the recidivist portions of the DWI statute, La.
  • State v. Bickham 739 So. 2d 887 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
    -780 (La.1993), the Supreme 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 *890 the prior guilty pleas and that defendant was represented by counsel when they were taken.
  • State v. Watts 735 So. 2d 866 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1999
  • State v. Guy 737 So. 2d 231 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
    In Abbott, wherein the court held that, if defendant denies the allegations in the habitual offender bill of information, the State has the burden of proving the existence of the prior guilty plea and that defendant was represented by counsel when the plea was taken.
  • State v. Davis 734 So. 2d 896 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
    For this proposition, a habitual offender case.
  • State v. Kunzman 741 So. 2d 112 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
  • State v. Jones 733 So. 2d 127 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
  • State v. Rice 736 So. 2d 956 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
  • State v. Brady 727 So. 2d 1264 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
    Thus, defendant avers, the State is relieved of the burden proving that the prior guilty pleas were freely and voluntarily given, *1272 that the defendant was properly Boykinized
  • State v. Brown 732 So. 2d 566 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1999
    The defendant complains that the state did not carry its burden, of presenting competent evidence demonstrating the constitutionality of his prior guilty plea and that the defendant was the person who was *568 convicted of the prior felony.
  • State v. Jordon 732 So. 2d 569 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1999
    The defendant complains that the state did not demonstrate that his previous guilty pleas were made knowingly and voluntarily because the state did not meet its burden, of presenting competent evidence demonstrating the existence of a prior felony conviction and that the defendant was the person who was convicted of the prior felony.
  • State v. Richmond 734 So. 2d 33 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
    at 779 (La.1993); State v. Bailey, 713 So.2d at 610 .
  • State v. Richmond 734 So. 2d 33 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1999
    at 779 (La.1993); State v. Bailey, 713 So.2d at 610 .
  • State v. Finch 730 So. 2d 1020 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
    State v. Wheeler, 93-1385, p. 3 (La.App.
  • State v. Franks 730 So. 2d 998 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
    is misplaced, since that opinion sets out the burden of proof concerning prior offenses in habitual offender prosecutions.
  • State v. Bush 733 So. 2d 49 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
  • State v. Hennis 734 So. 2d 21 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
    -80 (La.1993), the Louisiana Supreme 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. Williams 729 So. 2d 14 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1999
    Where the prior conviction was obtained pursuant to a plea of guilty
  • State v. Jackson 726 So. 2d 1061 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
    The burden of proof for the use of such prior offenses in a -780 (La.1993).
  • State v. Radacker 722 So. 2d 1093 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1998
    the Louisiana Legislature amended LSA-R.S.