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. McQuarters 8 So. 3d 822 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2009
    See Anders v. California, supra; State v. Jyles, 96-2669 (La.12/12/97), ; *824 State v. Mouton, 95-0981 (La.4/28/95), ; (La.App.
  • State v. Gautreau 5 So. 3d 1059 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    12/12/97), -242 (per curiam) ; (La.
  • State v. Smith 9 So. 3d 238 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), |4asserting that he has thoroughly reviewed the trial court record and cannot find any non-frivolous issues to raise on appeal.
  • State v. Jarrow 9 So. 3d 905 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 j4any non-frivolous issues to raise on appeal.
  • State v. Alexander 8 So. 3d 732 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    1396 , 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967); State v. Jyles, 96-2669, p. 3 (La.12/12/97), (per curiam); (La.App.
  • State v. Rainey 8 So. 3d 690 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    1396 , 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and State v. Jyles, 96-2669 (La.12/12/97), (per cu-riam), asserting that she has thoroughly reviewed the trial court record and can find no non-frivolous issues to raise on appeal.
  • State v. Scott 8 So. 3d 658 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    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. Scott 8 So. 3d 112 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    96-2669, p. 3 (La.12/12/97), (per curiam).
  • State v. Isreal 2 So. 3d 569 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2009
    The brief also contains “a detailed and reviewable assessment for both the defendant and the appellate court of whether the appeal is worth pursuing in the first place.” See State v. Jyles, 96-2669 (La.12/12/97), .
  • State v. Walker 8 So. 3d 17 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).
  • State v. Dauzat 8 So. 3d 609 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), , 530 (La.App.
  • State v. Mitchell 7 So. 3d 744 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 |4any non-frivolous issues to raise on appeal.
  • State v. DEROUEN 999 So. 2d 118 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2008
    1396 , 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967); State v. Jyles, 96-2669 (La.12/12/97), ; State v. Mouton, 95-0981 (La.04/28/95), ; (La.
  • State v. Allen 999 So. 2d 1163 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2008
    State v. Jyles, 96-2669 (La.12/12/97), (quoting State v. Mouton, 95-0981, p. 2 (La.4/28/95), ).
  • State v. HARMASON 996 So. 2d 701 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
    12/12/97), (per curiam); (La.
  • State v. Winchester 994 So. 2d 155 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
    12/12/97), (per curiam); (La.
  • State v. Lowery 997 So. 2d 161 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2008
  • State of Louisiana v. Albert J. Brown La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
    12/12/97), the supreme court stated, “Counsel must demonstrate to the appellate court by full discussion and analysis that he has cast an advocate’s eye over the trial record and considered whether any ruling made by the trial court, subject to the contemporaneous objection rule, had a significant, adverse impact on shaping
  • State v. Jackson 996 So. 2d 65 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2008
  • State v. Tyler 996 So. 2d 433 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2008
    1396 , 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967); State v. Jyles, 96-2669 (La.12/12/97), ; *435 State v. Mouton, 95-0981 (La.4/28/95), ; (La.App.
  • State v. MacOn 986 So. 2d 916 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2008
  • State v. James 988 So. 2d 807 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
    The Louisiana Supreme Court expounded upon the Anders requirements in State v. Jyles, 96-2669 (La.12/12/97), (per curiam), when it stated the following: Counsel must demonstrate to the appellate court by full discussion and analysis that he has cast an advocate’s eye over the trial record and considered whether any ruling made by the trial *812 court, subject to the contemporaneous objection rule, had a significant, adv
  • State v. Scott 988 So. 2d 784 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
    Counsel filed a brief complying with State v. Jyles, 96-2669 (La.12/12/97), .
  • State v. Garcia 988 So. 2d 786 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
    Counsel filed a brief complying with State v. Jyles, 96-2669 (La.12/12/97), .
  • State v. Cowart 985 So. 2d 871 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2008
  • State v. Thomas 986 So. 2d 240 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2008
    2094 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1377 (1967); State v. Jyles, 96-2669 (La.12/12/97), ; State v. Mouton, 95-0981 (La.4/28/95), ; (La.App.
  • State v. Roberson 986 So. 2d 246 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2008
    1396 , 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967); State v. Jyles, 1996-2669 (La.12/12/97), ; State v. Mouton, XXXX-XXXX (La.04/28/95), ; (La.App.
  • State v. Jenkins 986 So. 2d 235 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2008
    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 of Louisiana v. Walter Harris, Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
    12/12/97), the supreme court stated, “Counsel must demonstrate to the appellate court by full discussion and analysis that he has cast an advocate’s eye over the trial record and considered whether 3 any ruling made by the trial court, subject to the contemporaneous objection
  • State v. Augustine 987 So. 2d 271 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2008
    5 Cir. 6/25/96) , , and expanded by the Louisiana Supreme Court in State v. Jyles, 96-2669 (La.12/12/97), .
  • State v. Sims 981 So. 2d 838 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2008
    1396 , 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967); State v. Jyles, 96-2669 (La.12/12/97), ; (La.App.
  • State v. Thomas 984 So. 2d 149 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2008
    12/12/97), , *151 242 (per curiam).
  • State v. Thomas 983 So. 2d 943 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2008
    5 Cir. 6/25/96), , [2] and expanded by the Louisiana *945 Supreme Court in State v. Jyles, 96-2669, p. 3 (La.12/12/97), (per curiam).
  • State v. Lewis 982 So. 2d 873 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2008
    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. Jones 978 So. 2d 1236 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2008
    See State v. Jyles, 1996-2669 (La.1997), .
  • State v. Landfair 979 So. 2d 619 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2008
  • State v. Defrene 980 So. 2d 31 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2008
    In State v. Jyles, 96-2669, p. 3 (La.12/12/97), (quoting State v. Mouton, 95-0981 (La.4/28/95), (per curiam)) the Court explained counsel must "review not only the procedural history of the case and the evidence presented at trial but must also provide [.
  • State v. Trufant 980 So. 2d 29 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
    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. Dufrene 980 So. 2d 31 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
    In State v. Jyles, 96-2669, p. 3 (La.12/12/97), (quoting State v. Mouton, 95-0981 (La.4/28/95), (per curiam)) the Court explained counsel must “review not only the procedural history of the case and the evidence presented at trial but must also provide [...
  • State v. Keys 978 So. 2d 1027 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2008
    Counsel filed a brief complying with State v. Jyles, 96-2669 (La.12/12/97), .
  • State v. Franks 975 So. 2d 836 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2008
    Finding that counsel's brief was insufficient under State v. Jyles, 96-2669 (La.12/12/97), , we instructed counsel to file a supplemental brief and *838 deferred consideration of the motion to withdraw.
  • State v. Hawthorne 973 So. 2d 124 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2007
    See State v. Jyles, 1996-2669 (La.1997), .
  • State v. Smith 954 So. 2d 806 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2007
    Appellate counsel subsequently filed an Anders brief in conformity with the procedures outlined in State v. Jyles, 96-2669 (La.12/12/97), , (La.App.
  • State v. Rasco 946 So. 2d 275 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
    State v. Jyles, 96-2669 (La.12/12/97), .
  • State v. Dillon 947 So. 2d 86 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2006
    5th Cir.6/25/96), , and expanded by the Louisiana Supreme Court in State v. Jyles, 96-2669 (La.12/12/97), .
  • State v. Thompson 942 So. 2d 698 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
    See State v. Jyles, 96-2669 (La.12/12/97), .
  • State v. Sullivan 939 So. 2d 516 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
    State v. Jyles, 96-2669 (La.12/12/97), .
  • State v. Matthews 935 So. 2d 775 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
    See State v. Jyles, 96-2669 (La.12/12/97), .
  • State ex rel. D.A.G. 935 So. 2d 216 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2006
    ndants entitled to appointment of counsel, we order counsel to review the record and either file a brief by June 26, 2006 containing assignments of error and argument addressing the assigned errors in accordance with the Louisiana Uniform Rules, Courts of Appeal, or, should counsel find no valid basis for appeal, counsel shall comply with the requirements of State v. Jyles, 96-2669 (La.12/12/97), (per curiam), (La.App.
  • State v. Sweat 926 So. 2d 779 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
    State v. Jyles, 96-2669 (La.12/12/97), .