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. Jyles, 704 So. 2d 241.

637 citing documents.

  • State v. Boutte 131 So. 3d 978 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    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 “can find no non-frivolous issues to raise on appeal and can find no ruling of the trial court that arguably supports the appeal.” Accordingly, appointed counsel requests to withdraw as attorney of record.
  • State of Louisiana v. Tommy Paul Bourque La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
  • State v. Ivey 131 So. 3d 349 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    The Louisiana Supreme Court approved this procedure in State v. Jyles, 96-2669 (La.12/12/97), .
  • State v. Walker 128 So. 3d 1205 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    96-2669 (La.12/12/97), (per curiam).
  • State v. Harris 128 So. 3d 1178 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    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 “can find no non-frivolous issues to raise on appeal and can find no ruling of the trial court which arguably supports the appeal.” Accordingly, appointed counsel requests to withdraw as attorney of record.
  • State v. Johnson 128 So. 3d 561 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    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 of Louisiana v. Frank Allen Fregia, Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
  • State v. Lyons 128 So. 3d 407 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2013
    1396 , 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967) and State v. Jyles, 96-2669 (La.12/12/97); (per curiam).
  • State v. Weber 128 So. 3d 344 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    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. Fregia 157 So. 3d 80 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    Further, we observe that “[a]n Anders brief need not 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.” State v. Jyles, 96-2669, p. 2 (La.12/12/97), .
  • State v. Brown 135 So. 3d 718 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2013
    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.” State v. Jyles, 96-2669 (La.12/12/97), .
  • State v. Coleman 124 So. 3d 1191 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2013
    See Anders v. California, supra; State v. Jyles, 96-2669 (La.12/12/97), ; State v. Mouton, 95-0981 (La.04/28/95), ; (La.App.
  • State v. Dorsey 123 So. 3d 814 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    Counsel filed a brief complying with State v. Jyles, 96-2669 (La.12/12/97), .
  • State v. Bruce 121 So. 3d 796 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    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 “can find no non-frivolous issues to raise on appeal and can find no trial court rulings that would arguably support the appeal.” Accordingly, appointed counsel requests to withdraw as counsel of record.
  • State v. Mercadel 120 So. 3d 872 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    Counsel filed a brief complying with State v. Jyles, 96-2669 (La.12/12/97), .
  • State v. Buhcannon 119 So. 3d 853 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    1396 , 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967) and State v. *856 Jyles, 96-2669 (La.12/12/97), , stating that after close review of the record, she is unable to find any non-frivolous issues subject to argument and, therefore, requesting that the court conduct an errors patent review and allow her to withdraw from representation of the defendant in this appeal.
  • State of Louisiana v. Ramon L. Ellender La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
    12/12/97), (citing Jones v. Barnes, 463 U.S. 745, 103 S.Ct.
  • State v. Spells 116 So. 3d 1011 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    Counsel’s brief also complies with the requirements enunciated in State v. Jyles, 96-2669 (La.12/12/97), , which requires that it contain “a detailed and renewable assessment for both the defendant and the appellate court of whether the appeal is worth pursuing in the first place.” Id., p. 3, 704 So.2d at 242 .
  • State v. Simmons 114 So. 3d 535 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2013
    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 of Louisiana v. Simcoe Cole AKA Simco W. Cole La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
  • State v. Desadier 113 So. 3d 1193 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2013
    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. Kennedy 112 So. 3d 1037 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2013
    1396 , 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967); State v. Jyles, 96-2669 (La.12/12/97), ; State v. Monton, 95-0981 (La.4/28/95), ; (La.App.
  • State v. Pete 112 So. 3d 353 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    Counsel filed a brief complying with State v. Jyles, 96-2669 (La.12/12/97), .
  • State v. Ford 113 So. 3d 319 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    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. Thomas 110 So. 3d 250 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2013
    1396 , 18 L.Ed.2d, 493 (1967); State v. Jyles, 96-2669 (La.12/12/97), , writ denied, 1999-3018 (La.03/31/00), ; (La.App.
  • State v. Aguillar 110 So. 3d 1205 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    1396 , 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967) and State v. Jyles, 96-2669 (La.12/12/97), (per curiam), asserting that he *1207 has thoroughly reviewed the trial court record and cannot find any non-frivolous issues to raise on appeal.
  • State of Louisiana v. Richard Vital La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
    12/12/97), (citing Jones v. Barnes, 463 U.S. 745, 103 S.Ct.
  • State of Louisiana v. Richard Vital La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
    12/12/97), (citing Jones v. Barnes, 463 U.S. 745, 103 S.Ct.
  • State v. Vital 107 So. 3d 1274 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    le it is not necessary for Defendant’s appellate 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[,]” appellate counsel’s An-ders brief must “assure the court that the indigent defendant’s constitutional rights have not been violated.” State v. Jyles, 96-2669, p. 2 (La.12/12/97), (citing Jones v. Barnes, 463 U.S. 745 , 103 S.Ct.
  • State v. Vital 107 So. 3d 1279 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    While it is not necessary for Defendant’s appellate 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[,]” appellate counsel’s An-ders brief must “assure the court that the indigent defendant’s constitutional rights have not been violated.” State v. Jyles, 96-2669, p. 2 (La.12/12/97), (citing Jones v. Barnes, 463 U.S. 745 , 103 S.Ct.
  • State v. Skinner 108 So. 3d 1200 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2013
    12/12/97); (per curiam).
  • State ex rel. S.R. 112 So. 3d 264 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    1396 , 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and State v. Jyles, 96-2669 (La.12/12/97), .
  • State v. Chelette 106 So. 3d 1252 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2012
    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. Keller 106 So. 3d 696 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    Likewise, his counsel filed a brief complying with State v. Jyles, 96-2669 (La.12/12/97), .
  • State v. Newman 107 So. 3d 775 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    1396 , 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967) and State v. Jyles, 96-2669, p. 3 (La.12/12/97), (per curiam), asserting *780 he has thoroughly reviewed the trial court record and could find no non-frivolous issues to raise on appeal.
  • State v. Williams 106 So. 3d 1068 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2012
    96-2669 (La.12/12/97); (per curiam).
  • State v. Pierce 106 So. 3d 1058 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    12/12/97), (per curiam).
  • State v. Massey 106 So. 3d 644 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    Counsel filed a brief complying with State v. Jyles, 96-2669 (La.12/12/97), .
  • State v. Drew 107 So. 3d 748 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2012
    See Anders v. California, supra at note 1; State v. Jyles, 96-2669 (La.12/12/97), ; State v. Mouton, 95-0981 (La.4/28/95), ; (La.App.
  • State v. Hedgespeth 107 So. 3d 743 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2012
    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. Culverhouse 107 So. 3d 736 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2012
    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), ; and, (La.App.
  • State v. Walter 107 So. 3d 111 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2012
    See Anders v. California, supra; State v. Jyles, 96-2669 (La.12/12/97), ; State v. Mouton, 95 -0981 (La.4/28/95), ; and State v. Benjamin, supra.
  • State of Louisiana v. Jarvis Joseph Joubert La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
    12/12/97), Defendant‘s appellate counsel filed a brief indicating his review of the record showed no non-frivolous issues existed for appeal.
  • State v. Hubbard 103 So. 3d 594 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    96-2669 (La.12/12/97), (per curiam).
  • State v. Stovall 102 So. 3d 994 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    1396 , 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967) and State v. Jyles, 96-2669 (La.12/12/97), , on January 30, 2012, stating that she could not find any issue to raise in his appellate brief but reserving the defendant’s right to file a pro se brief.
  • State v. Ott 102 So. 3d 944 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2012
    1396 , 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967) and State v. Jyles, 96-2669 (La.12/12/97); (per curiam), asserting he has thoroughly reviewed the trial court record and cannot find any non-frivolous issues to raise on appeal.
  • State v. Miller 102 So. 3d 956 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    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. Fifi 102 So. 3d 970 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    d that an Anders brief must demonstrate by full discussion and analysis that appellate counsel “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 the evidence presented to the jury for its consideration.” State v. Jyles, 96-2669, p. 3 (La.12/12/97), (per curiam).
  • State v. Fifi 102 So. 3d 963 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    d that an Anders brief must demonstrate by full discussion and analysis that appellate counsel “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 the evidence presented to the jury for its consideration.” State v. Jyles, 96-2669, p. 3 (La.12/12/97), (per curiam).
  • State v. Bazile 106 So. 3d 560 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2012
    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.App.