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. Jyles, 704 So. 2d 241.

637 citing documents.

  • State v. McKenzie 61 So. 3d 54 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    1396 , 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967) and State v. Jyles, 96-2669 (La.12/12/97), (per curiam), asserting that he has thoroughly reviewed the trial court record and cannot find any non-frivolous issues to raise on appeal.
  • State v. Junior 62 So. 3d 140 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    1396 , 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967) and State v. Jyles, 96-2669, p. 3 (La.12/12/97), (per curiam), asserting that she has thoroughly reviewed the trial court record and cannot find any non-frivolous issues to raise on appeal.
  • State v. Jackson 61 So. 3d 108 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    State v. Jyles, 96-2669, p. 2 (La.12/12/97), .
  • State v. Crochet 61 So. 3d 725 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    1396 , 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967) and State v. Jyles, 96-2669, p. 3 (La.12/12/97), (per curiam), asserting that she has thoroughly reviewed the trial court record and cannot find any non-frivolous issues to raise on appeal.
  • State of Louisiana v. Pedro Jose Reloba La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
    While it is not necessary for Defendant’s counsel to “catalog tediously every merit less objection made at trial or by way of pre-trial motions with a labored explanation of why the objections all lack merit,” counsel’s Anders brief must “assure the court that the indigent defendant’s constitutional rights have not been violated.” State v. Jyles, 96-2669 (La.12/12/97), (quoting McCoy v. Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, 486 U.S. 429, 439, 108 S.Ct.
  • State v. Reloba 56 So. 3d 1162 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    While it is not necessary for Defendant’s counsel to “catalog tediously every merit less objection made at trial or by way of pre-trial motions with a labored explanation of why the objections all lack merit,” counsel’s Anders brief must “assure the court that the indigent defendant’s constitutional rights have not been violated.” State v. Jyles, 96-2669 (La.12/12/97), , (quoting McCoy v. Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, 486 U.S. 429, 439 , 108 S.Ct.
  • State v. Jenkins 57 So. 3d 1127 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
    1396 , 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967); State v. Jyles, 96-2669 (La.12/12/97), ; State v. Mouton, 95-0981 (La.4/28/95), ; State v. Benjamin, supra.
  • State v. Eason 57 So. 3d 403 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
    1396 , 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967); State v. Jyles, 96-2669 (La.12/12/97), ; State v. Mouton, 95-0981 (La.4/28/95), ; (La.App.
  • State v. Williams 60 So. 3d 640 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    5 Cir. 6/25/96) , , and expanded by the Louisiana Supreme Court in State v. Jyles, 96-2669 (La.12/12/97), (per curiam).
  • State v. Wilson 59 So. 3d 1259 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2011
    1396 , 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and to State v. Jyles, 96-2669, p. 3 (La.12/12/97), (per curiam), asserting that he has thoroughly reviewed the trial court record and cannot find any non-frivolous issues to raise on appeal.
  • State v. Jenkins 56 So. 3d 1038 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2010
    1396 , 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967); State v. Jyles, 96-2669 (La.12/12/97), ; (La.App.
  • State v. Delatte 54 So. 3d 106 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    1396 , 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967) and State v. Jyles, 96-2669 (La.12/12/97), (per curiam), asserting that she has thoroughly reviewed the trial court record and cannot find any non-frivolous issues to raise on appeal.
  • State v. Burton 55 So. 3d 115 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2010
    1396 , 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967); State v. Jyles, 1996-2669 (La.12/12/97), ; State v. Mouton, 1995-0981 (La.04/28/95), ; (La.App.
  • State v. Jones 51 So. 3d 792 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    1396 , 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and State v. Jyles, 96-2669 (La.12/12/97), (per curiam), asserting that she has | thoroughly reviewed the trial court record and cannot find any non-frivolous issues to raise on appeal.
  • State v. Braud 50 So. 3d 868 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    4 Cir.1990) and filed a brief in compliance with State v. Jyles, 96-2669 (La.12/12/97), .
  • State v. Turner 47 So. 3d 455 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    1396 , 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967) and State v. Jyles, 96-2669, p. 3 (La.12/12/97), (per curiam), asserting that she has thoroughly reviewed the trial court record and cannot find any non-frivolous issues to raise on appeal.
  • State v. Wise 42 So. 3d 1137 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2010
    1396 , 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967); State v. Jyles, 96-2669 (La.12/12/97), ; State v. Mouton, 95-0981 (La.4/28/95), ; (La.App.
  • State v. Collins 44 So. 3d 775 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    1396 , 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967) and State v. Jyles, 96-2669, (La.12/12/97), (per curiam) respectively.
  • State v. Reed 41 So. 3d 659 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2010
    See Anders v. California, supra; State v. Jyles, 96-2669 (La.12/12/97), ; *660 State v. Mouton, 95-0981 (La.4/28/95), ; State v. Benjamin, supra.
  • State v. Reese 40 So. 3d 1117 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    1396 , 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967) and State v. Jyles, 96-2669, p. 3 (La.12/12/97), (per curiam), asserting that he has thoroughly reviewed the trial court record and cannot find any non-frivolous issues to raise on appeal.
  • State v. Fowler 40 So. 3d 1136 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    12/12/97), (per cu-riam).
  • State v. Butler 39 So. 3d 752 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    Counsel filed a brief complying with State v. Jyles, 96-2669 (La.12/12/97), .
  • State v. Robinson 38 So. 3d 1138 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    Counsel filed a brief complying with State v. Jyles, 96-2669 (La.12/12/97), .
  • State v. Autin 40 So. 3d 193 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    5 Cir. 6/25/96) , , and expanded by the | ^Louisiana Supreme Court in State v. Jyles, 96-2669 (La.12/12/97), (per curiam).
  • State v. Yanes 40 So. 3d 245 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    1396 , 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967) and State v. Jyles, 96-2669, p. 3 (La.12/12/97), (per curiam), asserting that he has thoroughly reviewed the trial court record and cannot find any non-frivolous issues to raise on appeal.
  • State v. Ervin 33 So. 3d 986 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2010
    1396 , 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967); State v. Jyles, 96-2669 (La.12/12/97), ; State v. Mouton, 95-0981 (La.4/28/95), ; (La.App.
  • State v. England 38 So. 3d 919 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    1396 , 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967) and State v. Jyles, 96-2669, p. 3 (La.12/12/97), (per curiam), asserting that she has thoroughly reviewed the trial court record and cannot find any non-frivolous issues to raise on appeal.
  • State v. England 38 So. 3d 383 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    1396 , 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967) and State v. Jyles, 96-2669, p. 3 (La.12/12/97), (per curiam), asserting that she has thoroughly reviewed the trial court record and cannot find any non-frivolous issues to raise on appeal.
  • State v. Haynes 34 So. 3d 325 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    1396 , 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967) and State v. Jyles, 96-2669, p. 3 (La.12/12/97), (per curiam), asserting that she has thoroughly reviewed the trial court record and cannot find any non-frivolous issues to raise on appeal.
  • State v. Chester 31 So. 3d 1116 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2010
    1396 , 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967) and State v. Jyles, 96-2669, p. 3 (La.12/12/97), (per curiam), asserting that she has thoroughly reviewed the trial court record and cannot find any non-frivolous issues to raise on appeal.
  • State v. Allemand 30 So. 3d 939 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    1396 , 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967) and State v. Jyles, 96-2669, p. 3 (La.12/12/97), (per curiam), asserting that she has thoroughly reviewed the trial court record and cannot find any non-frivolous issues to raise on appeal.
  • State v. Johnson 28 So. 3d 1125 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    5 Cir. 6/25/96) , , and expanded by the Louisiana Supreme Court in State v. Jyles, 96-2669 (La.12/12/97), (per curiam).
  • State v. Campbell 28 So. 3d 470 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2009
    1396 , 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967) and State v. Jyles, 96-2669, p. 3 (La.12/12/97), (per curiam), asserting that she has thoroughly reviewed the trial court record and cannot find any non-frivolous issues to raise on appeal.
  • State v. Hartshorn 25 So. 3d 172 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    See also, State v. Jyles, 96-2669 (La.12/12/97), (per curiam).
  • State v. Horton 28 So. 3d 381 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    1396 , 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967) and State v. Jyles, 96-2669, p. 3 (La.12/12/97), (per curiam), asserting that he has thoroughly reviewed the trial court record and cannot find any non-frivolous issues to raise on appeal.
  • State v. Magana 27 So. 3d 893 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    1396 , 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967) and State v. Jyles, 96-2669, p. 3 (La.12/12/97), (per curiam), asserting that he has thoroughly reviewed the trial court record and cannot find any non-frivolous issues to raise on appeal.
  • State v. McGee 24 So. 3d 235 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    1396 , 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and State v. Jyles, 96-2669, p. 3 (La.12/12/97), (per curiam).
  • State v. Kirkpatrick 24 So. 3d 902 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2009
    See Anders v. California, supra; State v. Jyles, 96-2669 (La.12/12/97), ; State v. Mouton, 95-0981 (La.4/28/95), ; State v. Benjamin, supra.
  • State v. Payne 16 So. 3d 517 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    Additionally, Counsel filed a brief in compliance with State v. Jyles, 96-2669 (La.12/12/97), (requiring “a detailed and reviewable assessment for both the defendant and the appellate court of whether the appeal is worth pursuing in the first place”).
  • State v. Jordan 19 So. 3d 1191 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    1396 , 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967) and State v. Jyles, 96-2669 (La.12/12/97), , and a Motion to Withdraw as counsel of record.
  • State v. Bridgewater 11 So. 3d 1245 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    12/12/97), ; State v. Mouton, 95-0981 (La.
  • State v. Hill 15 So. 3d 1038 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    1396 , 18 3L.Ed.2d 493 (1967) and State v. Jyles, 96-2669, p. 3 (La.12/12/97), (per curiam).
  • State v. Ronquille 16 So. 3d 411 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    5 Cir. 6/25/96) , , and expanded by the Louisiana Supreme Court in State v. Jyles, 96-2669 (La.12/12/97), (per curiam).
  • State v. Hill 15 So. 3d 1042 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    1396 , 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967) and State v. Jyles, 96-2669, p. 3 (La.12/12/97), (per curiam), asserting she has thoroughly reviewed the trial court record and cannot find any non-frivolous issues to raise on appeal.
  • State of Louisiana v. Coys Thomas, Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
    12/12/97), (citing McCoy v. Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, 486 U.S. 429, 439, 108 S.Ct.
  • State of Louisiana v. Marilyn Roman Lively La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
    12/12/97), in which the supreme court stated that in an Anders brief, counsel must review not only the procedural history of the case and the evidence presented at trial but must also provide a detailed and reviewable assessment for both the defendant and the appellate court of whether the appeal is worth pursuing in the first
  • State v. Thomas 18 So. 3d 127 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    While it is not necessary for Defendant’s counsel to “catalog tediously every meritless objection made at trial or by way of pre-trial motions with a labored explanation of why the objections all lack merit,” counsel’s Anders brief must “assure the court that the indigent defendant’s constitutional rights have not been violated.” State v. Jyles, 96-2669 (La.12/12/97), , (citing McCoy v. Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, 486 U.S. 429, 439 , 108 S.Ct.
  • State v. Lively 11 So. 3d 65 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    12/12/97), , in which the supreme court stated that in an Anders brief, counsel must review not only the procedural history of the case and the evidence presented at trial but must also provide a detailed and reviewable assessment for both the defendant and the appellate court of whether the appeal is worth pursuing in the first
  • State v. Grigsby 5 So. 3d 317 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2009
    12/12/97), , writ denied, 99-3018 (La.
  • State v. Fuller 6 So. 3d 1289 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2009
    1396 , 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967); State v. Jyles, 1996-2669 (La.12/12/97), ; (La.App.