Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Hamilton, 699 So. 2d 29.

61 citing documents.

State Ex Rel. Darrell J. Robinson v. Darrel Vannoy, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary, Angola, Louisiana La. 2024
7/1/97), where the defendant had a history of mental health issues (including auditory and visual hallucinations), this Court found trial counsel’s failure to conduct a reasonable investigation constituted reversible error, as it could have been a mitigating factor for the jury to consider in the sentencing phase.
State of Louisiana v. Marvin Santiago La. 2024
State of Louisiana v. Will Antonio Celestine La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2019
See State v. Hamilton, 92–2639 pp. 4–11 (La.7/1/97); – 35, cert.
State of Louisiana v. Richard Lindsey Gallier La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2018
State of Louisiana v. Mario Jamal Viltz La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2018
E.g., State v. Hamilton, 92-2639 (La.7/1/97), -35.
State v. Viltz 261 So. 3d 847 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
State v. Dressner 255 So. 3d 537 La. 2018
7/1/97), , 32 (citing State v. Brooks , 94-2438 (La.
State v. Reeves 254 So. 3d 665 La. 2018
7/1/97), , 32 (citing State v. Brooks , 94-2438 (La.
State v. Broadway 252 So. 3d 878 La. 2018
7/1/97), , 32 (citing State v. Brooks , supra ; State v. Sanders , 93-0001 (La.
State of Louisiana v. Nathaniel Climes Thibeaux AKA Nathaniel Thibeaux La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2017
E.g., State v. Hamilton, 92-2639 (La.7/1/97), -35.
State v. Thibeaux 229 So. 3d 967 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
State of Louisiana v. Joshua Jerome Ball La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
E.g., State v. Hamilton, 92-2639 (La.7/1/97), -35.
State v. Ball 209 So. 3d 793 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
State of Louisiana v. Cody Keith Fontenot -Aka- Cody Fontenot La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
E.g., State v. Hamilton, 92-2639 (La.7/1/97), -35.
State v. Fontenot 207 So. 3d 589 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
State v. Cosey 194 So. 3d 602 La. 2016
el at the penalty phase requires a showing that counsel failed to undertake "a reasonable investigation [which] would have uncovered mitigating evidence,” and that failing to put on the available mitigating evidence “was not a tactical decision but reflects a failure by counsel to advocate for his client’s cause,” which resulted in "actual prejudice.” State v. Hamilton, 92-2639, p. 6 (La.7/1/97), (citing State v. Brooks, 94-2438 (La.10/16/95), ; State v. Sanders, 93-0001 (La.11/30/94), ).
State v. Tyler 181 So. 3d 678 La. 2015
client’s cause;” (3) which caused “actual prejudice.” State v. Hamilton, 92-2639, p. 6 (La.7/1/97), (citing State v. Brooks, 94-2438 (La.10/16/95), and State v. Sanders, 93-0001 (La.11/30/94), ).
State v. Paulson 177 So. 3d 360 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
2527 , 156 L.Ed.2d 471 (2003) (defense counsel’s failure to investigate and present significant mitigating evidence constituted ineffective assistance); State v. Hamilton, 92-2639, pp. 5-10 (La.7/1/97), -34 (ineffective assistance during sentencing shown by counsel’s failure to make an opening statement, failure to present any mitigating evidence, and failure to plead for a life sentence); State v. Brooks, 94-2438, p. 9 (La.10/16/95), -39 (counsel’s failure to investigate and present easily obt
State v. Lee 181 So. 3d 631 La. 2015
g evidence, a petitioner must establish that: (1) counsel failed to undertake “a reasonable investigation [which] would have uncovered mitigating evidence;” and (2) failing to put on the available mitigating evidence “was not a tactical decision but reflects a failure by counsel to advocate for his client’s cause;” (3) which caused “actual prejudice.” State v. Hamilton, 92-2639, p. 6 (La.7/1/97), (citing State v. Brooks, 94-2438 (La.10/16/95), and State v. Sanders, 93-0001 (La.11/30/94), ).
State ex rel. Wearry v. Cain 161 So. 3d 620 La. 2015
To show that counsel rendered ineffective assistance at the penalty phase, Wearry must meet the standard set out by this Court in State v. Hamilton, 92-2639, p. 6 (La.7/1/97), , under which it must be shown that counsel failed to undertake “a reasonable investigation [which] would have uncovered mitigating evidence,” and that failing to put on the available mitigating evidence “was not a tactical decision but reflects a failure by counsel to advocate for his client’s cause,” which cause
State of Louisiana v. Alcide Hypolite La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
E.g., State v. Hamilton, 92-2639 (La.7/1/97), -35.
State v. Hypolite 139 So. 3d 687 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
E.g., State v. Hamilton, 92-2639 (La.7/1/97), -35 .
State of Louisiana v. Devonta Mitchell La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
State v. Hamilton, 92-2639 (La.7/1/97), -35, cert.
State v. Sparks 68 So. 3d 435 La. 2011
State v. Hamilton, 92-2639, p. 6 (La.7/1/97), , cert.
State v. Ford 57 So. 3d 297 La. 2011
State v. Hamilton, 92-2639, p. 6 (La.7/1/97), (citing State v. Brooks, 94-2438 (La.10/15/95), ; State v. Sanders, 93-0001 (La.11/30/94), ).
State v. Nguyen 958 So. 2d 61 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2007
State v. Hamilton, 92-2639 (La.7/1/97), , cert.
State v. Edwards 957 So. 2d 185 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2007
State v. Hamilton, 92-2639 (La.7/1/97), , cert.
State of Louisiana v. Darryl A. Holmes La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
State of Louisiana v. Nathan Stringer La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
E.g., State v. Hamilton, 92-2639 (La.7/1/97), -35.
State v. Stringer 949 So. 2d 464 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
E.g., State v. Hamilton, 92-2639 (La.7/1/97), -35 .
State of Louisiana v. Sammie Davis La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
State v. Hamilton, 92-2639 (La.7/1/97); cert.
State v. Davis 918 So. 2d 1186 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
State v. Hamilton, 92-2639 (La.7/1/97); , cert.
State v. Johnson 860 So. 2d 180 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2003
However, the Court can address the issues if the record contains sufficient evidence to decide the issue, and the issue is properly raised by assignment of error on appeal, State v. Hamilton, 92-2639 (La.7/1/97), , cert.
State v. McLelland 860 So. 2d 31 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2003
State v. Hamilton, 92-2639, p. 4 (La.7/1/97), , cert.
State v. Berniard 860 So. 2d 66 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2003
State v. Hamilton, 92-2639, p. 4 (La.7/1/97), , cert.
State v. Taves 846 So. 2d 1 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
E.g., State v. Hamilton, 92-2639 (La.7/1/97), -35 .
State v. Guilbeau 838 So. 2d 160 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
E.g., State v. Hamilton, 92-2639 (La.7/1/97), -35 .
State v. Smothers 836 So. 2d 559 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2002
However, the Court can address the issues if the record contains sufficient evidence to decide the issue, and the issue is properly raised by assignment of error on appeal, State v. Hamilton, 92-2639 (La.7/1/97), , cert.
State v. Lipscomb 807 So. 2d 218 La. 2002
State v. Hamilton, 92-2639 (La.7/1/97)
State v. LaCaze 824 So. 2d 1063 La. 2002
[35] State v. Hamilton, 92-2639 (La.7/1/97), -35 (counsel's penalty phase errors, including no opening statement, failure to investigate and present available mental health evidence and a twelve-sentence closing argument, require new penalty hearing); -1293 (La.1994)(counsel's tepid penalty phase opening admitting unreadi
State v. Aleman 809 So. 2d 1056 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2002
State v. Hamilton, 92-2639 (La.7/1/97), , cert.
State v. Gordon 803 So. 2d 131 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2001
[18] State v. Hamilton, 92-2639, pp. 4-5 (La.7/1/97), , cert.
State v. Holley 799 So. 2d 578 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2001
E.g., State v. Hamilton, 92-2639 (La.7/1/97), -35 .
State v. Pendelton 783 So. 2d 459 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2001
State v. Hamilton, 92-2639 (La.7/1/97), .
State v. Miller 776 So. 2d 396 La. 2000
State v. Hamilton, 92-2639 (La.7/1/97), -35 , cert.
State v. Scott 768 So. 2d 112 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2000
See also State v. Hamilton, 92-2639 (La.7/1/97); .
State v. Bright 776 So. 2d 1134 La. 2000
E.g., State v. Hamilton, 92-2639 (La.7/1/97), -35 .
State v. Taylor 757 So. 2d 63 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2000
State v. Hamilton, 92-2639, p. 4 (La.7/1/97), ; State v. Alexis, 98-1145, p. 20 (La.App.
State v. Young 757 So. 2d 797 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2000
State v. Hamilton, 92-2639 (La.7/1/97), , cert.
State v. Myers 753 So. 2d 898 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1999
State v. Hamilton, 92-2639 (La.7/1/97), , cert.