Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Melon, 660 So. 2d 466.

58 citing documents.

State Of Louisiana v. Deandre Galmon La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2024
9/ 22/ 95), before determining whether to conduct a hearing consistent with State v. Alexander, 2007- 1236 ( La.
State Of Louisiana v. Christopher Hutchinson La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2024
9/ 22/ 95) , - 67 (" meaningful access to the courts guaranteed by La.
State Of Louisiana v. Darrel W. Harris, Jr. La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2024
9/ 22/ 95), before determining whether to conduct a hearing consistent with State v. Alexander, 2007- 1236 ( La.
State Of Louisiana v. Cody Michael Matthews La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2022
9/ 22/ 95), before determining whether to conduct a hearing consistent with State v. Alexander, 2007- 1236 ( La.
State Of Louisiana v. Cedric Emerson La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2021
9/ 22/ 95), before determining whether to conduct a hearing consistent with State v. Alexander, 2007- 1236 ( La.
State Of Louisiana v. Jacob Fay Luke, Sr. La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2021
9/ 22/ 95), before determining whether to conduct a hearing consistent with State v. Alexander, 2007- 1236 ( La.
State Of Louisiana v. Victor Ozell Jones La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2020
9/ 22/ 95), before determining whether to conduct a hearing consistent with State v. Alexander, 2007- 1236 ( La.
State Of Louisiana v. Jacob Fay Luke La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2020
9/ 22/ 95), before determining whether to conduct a hearing consistent with State v. Ale* ander, 2007- 1236 ( La.
State Of Louisiana v. Damon Delmore La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2020
9/ 22/ 95), ( per curiam), that State v. 394 So.
State of Louisiana, Ex Rel, Paul Poupart Versus State of Louisiana La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2019
9/22/95), the Louisiana Supreme Court noted that “[o]n previous occasions, this Court has indicated that the meaningful access to courts guaranteed by La.
State v. Cooley 247 So. 3d 1159 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2018
State v. Jackson 246 So. 3d 646 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2018
9/22/95), , lower courts must accept and consider filings from represented defendants in a pre-verdict context whenever doing so will not lead to confusion at trial.
State of Louisiana v. Timothy H. Queen -Aka- Timothy Hugh Queen La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2018
9/22/95), Defendant asserts he had a right for his pro se motion to be heard before trial.
State v. Queen 237 So. 3d 547 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
9/22/95), , Defendant asserts he had a right for his pro se motion to be heard before trial.
State of Louisiana v. Reggie Patrick Thibodeaux 236 So. 3d 1253 La. 2017
9/22/95), the court of appeal found that “[l]ower courts are required to accept and consider pro se filings from represented defendants in a preverdict context whenever doing so will not lead to confusion at trial.” State v. Thibodeaux, 17-0232 (La.
State v. Reed 218 So. 3d 729 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
State ex rel. Loyden v. State 138 So. 3d 1235 La. 2014
See State v. Melon, 95-2209 (La 9/22/95), (“[Meaningful access to courts guaranteed by La.
State v. Moore 134 So. 3d 1265 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2014
In State v. Melon, 95-2209 (La.9/22/95), , the Louisiana Supreme Court held that trial courts must accept and consider filings from represented defendants in a pre-verdict context unless doing so will lead to confusion at trial.
State ex rel. Williams v. State 112 So. 3d 852 La. 2013
State v. Stewart, 99-0113 (La.1/29/99), ; State v. Gibbs, 98-2403 (La.9/16/98), ; State v. Melon, 95-2209 (La.9/22/95), .
State of Louisiana v. J. L. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
State of Louisiana v. J. L. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
State ex rel. Dyer v. State 71 So. 3d 270 La. 2011
See State v. Melon, 95-2209 (La.9/22/95), (“[L]ower courts must ...
State ex rel. Jones v. State 71 So. 3d 269 La. 2011
See State v. Melon, 95-2209 (La.9/22/95), (“[L]ower courts must ...
State ex rel. Alexander v. State 71 So. 3d 269 La. 2011
See State v. Melon, 95-2209 (La.9/22/95), (“[L]ower courts must ...
STATE EX REL. JONES v. State 71 So. 3d 269 La. 2011
See State v. Melon, 95-2209 (La.9/22/95), ("[L]ower courts must ...
State v. Logan 34 So. 3d 528 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2010
In support of his contention that he was denied due process, Defendant cites the Louisiana Supreme Court’s opinion in State v. Melon, 95-2209 *537 (La.9/22/95), , which states that courts are required to accept and consider post-verdict pro se filings from represented defendants.
State of Louisiana v. Wilkes Laird La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
9/22/95), in which the supreme court held that the meaningful access to the courts guaranteed by the Louisiana Constitution requires the lower courts to “accept and consider filings from represented defendants in a preverdict context whenever doing so will not lead to confusion at trial.” Defendant sent Ms. Abr
State v. Laird 30 So. 3d 1167 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
This court granted Defendant’s writ application and remanded the motions for hearing pursuant to State v. Melon, 95-2209, p. 1 (La.9/22/95), , in which the supreme court held that the meaningful access to the courts guaranteed by the Louisiana Constitution requires the lower courts to “accept and consider filings from represented defendants in a preverdict context whenever doing so will not lead to confusion at trial.” Defendant sent Ms. Abrusley a le
State v. Baylor 998 So. 2d 800 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
that requires a motion regarding sanity to be made in writing or solely by defense counsel and in State v. Melon, 95-2209 (La.9/22/95), , the supreme court directed lower courts to consider and accept filings from defendants represented in a context that is preverdict whenever it would lend itself to confusion at trial.
State v. Cheatteam 986 So. 2d 738 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2008
State v. Melon, 95-2209 (La.9/22/95), -67 .
State of Louisiana v. Albert K. Alexander La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
State v. Alexander 980 So. 2d 877 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
Defendant requested relief under State v. Melon, 95-2209 (La.9/22/95), .
State v. Gullette 975 So. 2d 753 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2008
Const. art. I, §§ 2, 19, and 22; State v. Melon, 95-2209 (La.9/22/95), ; State v. Anderson, 29,282 (La.App.
State v. Brown 966 So. 2d 1138 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
State v. Melon, 95-2209, p. 1 (La.9/22/95), .
State of Louisiana v. Robert Wayne Brown La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
9/22/95), discussed below.
State v. Jones 942 So. 2d 1215 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
However, the supreme court in State v. Melon, 95-2209 (La.9/22/95), , directed lower courts to accept and consider filings from represented defendants *1228 in a pre-verdict context whenever doing so would not lead to confusion at trial.
State of Louisiana v. Nicholas Demond Pitree La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
State v. Pitree 930 So. 2d 265 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
Such a refusal to rule upon a pro se motion may be erroneous, pursuant to State v. Melon, 95-2209 (La.9/22/95), .
State v. Hunter 907 So. 2d 200 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2005
Const. art. I, Sections 2, 19 and 22; State v. Melon, 95-2209 (La.9/22/95), ; State v. Anderson, 29,282 (La.App.
State v. Smith 869 So. 2d 835 La. 2004
State v. Melon, 95-2209 (La.9/22/95), (“Meaningful access to courts guaranteed by La.
State v. Gaddis 839 So. 2d 1258 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2003
State v. Melon, 95-2209 (La.9/22/95), .
State v. Mills 794 So. 2d 842 La. 2001
Granted for the sole purpose of transferring the application to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, for its consideration under State v. Gibbs, 98-2403 (La.9/16/98), and State v. Melon, 95-2209 (La.9/22/95), .
State ex rel. Johnson v. State 793 So. 2d 208 La. 2001
Anderson v. State, 00-2722 (La.10/13/00), ; State v. Gibbs, 98-2403 (La.9/16/98), ; State v. Melon, 95-2209 (La.9/22/95), .
State v. Guillory 773 So. 2d 794 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2000
State v. Melon, 95-2209 (La.9/22/95); .
State v. Odom 772 So. 2d 281 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
State v. Melon, 95-2209 (La.9/22/95), ; State v. Anderson, 29,282 (La.
State ex rel. Anderson v. State 771 So. 2d 641 La. 2000
art. 914.1(A), State v. Gibbs, 98-2403 (La.9/16/98), ; State v. Melon, 95-2209 (La.9/22/95), , and to provide relator with any additional materials it finds appropriate in its discretion based on a showing of good cause by relator.
State v. Robinson 754 So. 2d 311 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
This jurisprudence, however, may not apply to pro-se filings in light of State v. Melon, 95-2209 (La.9/22/95), , which held that courts must accept and consider post-verdict pro-se filings from unrepresented defendants.
State ex rel. Norris v. State 747 So. 2d 526 La. 1999
s); Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs; Parish of Caddo 1st Judicial District Court Div. “H” Number 193,085; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, Number 32941-KA Granted for the sole purpose of transferring the application to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, for its consideration under State v. Gibbs, 98-2403 (La.9/16/98), and State v. Melon, 95-2209 (La.9/22/95), .
State v. Craig 747 So. 2d 604 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
In State v. Melon, 95-2209 (La.09/22/95), , the supreme court directed that the lower courts must also accept and consider pro-se filings from represented defendants in a preverdict context whenever doing so will not lead to confusion at trial.
State v. Stewart 736 So. 2d 820 La. 1999
State v. Melon, 95-2209 (La.9/22/95), ; State v. Gibbs, 98-2403 (La.9/16/98), .