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. Short 725 So. 2d 23 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1998
    the legislature amended La.
  • State v. Carter 712 So. 2d 701 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1998
    App. 5 Cir. 11/16/94), , writ denied, 94-3076 (La.4/7/95), , [4] , this Court summarized the burdens of proof during a multiple offender proceeding as follows: 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 t
  • State v. Scamardo 708 So. 2d 1126 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1998
    517 , 121 L.Ed.2d 391 , the Louisiana Supreme Court adopted a
  • State v. Newman 707 So. 2d 122 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1998
  • State v. Evans 702 So. 2d 1148 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1997
  • State v. Winfrey 703 So. 2d 63 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1997
    517 , 121 L.Ed.2d 391 , [15] the Louisiana Supreme Court adopted a
  • State v. Jones 700 So. 2d 1034 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1997
    set forth the burden of proof in a habitual offender proceeding.
  • State v. Ignot 701 So. 2d 1001 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1997
    -780 , (La.1993), 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 defendant was represented by counsel
  • State v. Jones 696 So. 2d 240 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1997
  • State v. Raymond 695 So. 2d 1039 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1997
  • State v. Lamison 692 So. 2d 1057 La. 1997
  • State v. Stewart 712 So. 2d 106 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1997
    might be read to require that the minute entry reflect the presence of counsel, the decision did not address that fact setting, did not overrule Martin , and expressly affirmed the holding in Holden .
  • State v. Lamison 694 So. 2d 984 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
  • State v. Stepp 686 So. 2d 76 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1996
  • State v. Joseph 685 So. 2d 237 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1996
  • State v. Armstrong 683 So. 2d 1261 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
    (La.1993) for his contention that when the state proves the existence of prior guilty pleas, it must affirmatively show the defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his rights.
  • State v. Lassere 683 So. 2d 812 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1996
  • State v. Cossee 678 So. 2d 72 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1996
    the Louisiana Legislature Gamended La.R.S.
  • State v. Cooper 678 So. 2d 59 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
    : 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. Denomes 674 So. 2d 465 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
    In assignment four, defendant contends the trial court erred in adjudicating him a third felony offender and, in particular, as to the 1986 California predicate guilty plea.
  • State v. Robinson 665 So. 2d 451 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1995
    the Louisiana Supreme Court revised the scheme of allocating burdens of proof regarding a guilty plea to a predicate offense.
  • State v. Johnson 664 So. 2d 141 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
  • State v. Lorio 662 So. 2d 128 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1995
    the Louisiana Legislature amended La.R.S.
  • State v. Taylor 656 So. 2d 722 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1995
  • State v. Stewart 656 So. 2d 677 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
  • State v. Morris 645 So. 2d 1295 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
    Recently, the Louisiana Supreme Court revised the scheme of allocating burdens of proof in habitual offender proceedings to relieve some of the burden from the prosecution and to allow a presumption of regularity to final convictions used in habitual offender hearings.
  • State v. Conrad 646 So. 2d 1062 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1994
    ANALYSIS—ISSUE TWO In addressing the final issue, we note the Louisiana Supreme Court, (La.
  • State v. Wheeler 644 So. 2d 1089 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
  • State v. Chapman 643 So. 2d 394 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
    the Supreme Court addressed the question of whether the State submitted sufficient proof of a prior felony conviction in an habitual offender proceeding.
  • State v. Camp 641 So. 2d 702 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
  • State v. Abbott 634 So. 2d 911 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
  • State v. Bridges 632 So. 2d 844 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
    to determine whether defendant’s prior guilty plea was informed and voluntary, and made with an articulated waiver of the three Boykin rights.
  • State v. Carter 630 So. 2d 926 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1993
  • State v. Ruiz 630 So. 2d 897 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1993
  • State v. Bridges 629 So. 2d 1156 La. 1993
    Granted and remanded to the Fourth Circuit, Court of Appeal
  • State v. Windham 630 So. 2d 688 La. 1993
  • State v. Cittadino 628 So. 2d 251 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1993
    which set forth a revised scheme concerning the burden of proof required in habitual offender proceedings.
  • State v. Johnson 624 So. 2d 1207 La. 1993
    This case is remanded to the trial court to conduct a (1993).
  • State v. Stewart 624 So. 2d 1207 La. 1993
    This case is remanded to the trial court to conduct a (1993).
  • State v. Hoffman 624 So. 2d 1208 La. 1993
    Case remanded to the court of appeal to reconsider the use of defendant’s guilty plea in #248-089(J) as a
  • State v. Jeffers 623 So. 2d 882 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1993
    The state, in its application for rehearing, submits that our ruling is incorrect under the recent supreme court decision