Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Jyles, 704 So. 2d 241.

637 citing documents.

State v. Pee 107 So. 3d 69 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. Foster 105 So. 3d 730 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. Finley 105 So. 3d 732 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 v. Travis 101 So. 3d 492 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 records and cannot find any non-frivolous issues to raise on appeal.
State v. Howard 91 So. 3d 564 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 that she has thoroughly reviewed the trial court record and cannot find any non-frivolous issues to raise on appeal.
State v. Lawrence 91 So. 3d 557 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
His counsel filed a brief complying with State v. Jyles, 96-2669 (La.12/12/97), .
State v. Hernandez 96 So. 3d 505 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
In State v. Jyles, 96-2669 (La.12/12/97), (per curiam), the Louisiana Supreme Court stated that an Anders brief need not tediously catalog every mer-itless pretrial motion or objection made at trial with a detailed explanation of why the motions or objections lack merit.
State v. Cox 93 So. 3d 632 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. Williams 91 So. 3d 442 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 that she has thoroughly reviewed the trial court record and cannot find any non-frivolous issues to raise on appeal.
State v. Jones 91 So. 3d 480 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), *483 242 (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 91 So. 3d 1075 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
On appeal, defense counsel initially filed a brief presenting no assignments of error and stating it was filed to conform with the procedures outlined in State v. Jyles, 96-2669 (La.12/12/97), (per curiam); -31 (La.App.
State v. Campbell 86 So. 3d 204 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 OF LOUISIANA VERSUS HARRY LEE GATHE AKA HARRY LEE GOTCH AKA HAROLD LEE GOTCH AKA HAROLD LEE … La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
12/12/97), Defendant‟s appellate counsel filed a brief citing several potential errors for appeal, but she apparently concluded all of them would offer Defendant no relief.
State v. Bradham 87 So. 3d 200 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2012
1396 , 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967); State v. Jyles, 96-2669 (La.12/12/97), , writ denied, 1999-3018 (La.03/31/00), ; State v. Mouton, 95-0981 (La.04/28/95), ; (La.App.
State v. Jones 87 So. 3d 244 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2012
1396 , 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967); State v. Jyles, 96-2669 (La.12/12/97), ; State v. Moutan, 95-0981 (La.4/28/95), ; (La.App.
State v. Jones 88 So. 3d 1120 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 he has thoroughly reviewed the trial court record and cannot find any non-frivolous issues to raise on appeal.
State v. Mayon 88 So. 3d 1115 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 that she has thoroughly reviewed the trial court record and cannot find any non-frivolous issues to raise on appeal.
State v. Wilson 79 So. 3d 1265 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. Jones 81 So. 3d 835 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
12/12/97), (per curiam).
State v. Thomas 81 So. 3d 848 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 she has thoroughly reviewed the trial court record and cannot find any non-frivolous issues to raise on appeal.
State v. Fullilove 81 So. 3d 809 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. Otkins 81 So. 3d 150 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
12/12/97), ; State v. Mouton, 95-0981 (La.4/28/95), ; (La.App.
State v. Para 81 So. 3d 140 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
t an Anders brief must demonstrate by full discussion and analysis that appellate counsel “has cast an advocate’s *143 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 of Louisiana v. Tyrel O. Young La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
12/12/97), Defendant‘s appellate counsel filed a brief stating she could find no errors on appeal to support reversal of Defendant‘s conviction or sentence.
State v. Fleming 80 So. 3d 634 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
12/12/97), (per curiam).
State v. Saint-Vil 82 So. 3d 318 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State v. Jyles, 96-2669, p. 2 (La.12/12/97), .
State v. Dickerson 80 So. 3d 510 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 she has thoroughly reviewed the trial court record and cannot find |4any non-frivolous issues to raise on appeal.
State v. Lowery 80 So. 3d 523 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. Saint-Vil 77 So. 3d 390 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State v. Jyles, 96-2669, p. 2 (La.12/12/97), .
State v. Bush 77 So. 3d 439 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
1396 , 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967); State v. Jyles, 96-2669 (La.12/12/97), (per curiam); (La.
State v. Williams 77 So. 3d 394 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
t 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 *397 the jury for its consideration.” State v. Jyles, 96-2669, p. 3 (La.12/12/97), (per curiam).
State v. Wilson 77 So. 3d 400 La. Ct. App. 5th 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. Williams 72 So. 3d 966 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. Elzier 72 So. 3d 997 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. Boyd 72 So. 3d 952 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. Smith 71 So. 3d 357 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State v. Jyles, 96-2669 (La.12/12/97), (per curiam).
State v. Jones 66 So. 3d 1202 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
Counsel filed a brief complying with State v. Jyles, 96-2669 (La.12/12/97), .
State v. Junior 70 So. 3d 47 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
1396 , 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967); State v. Jyles, 96-2669, p. 3 (La.12/12/97), (per curiam); and adopted by this Court in State v. Bradford, 95-929, pp. 3-4 (La.App.
State v. Craig 66 So. 3d 60 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. Williams 67 So. 3d 618 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2011
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. Stewart 65 So. 3d 771 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
12/12/97), (per curiam).
State v. Vargas 66 So. 3d 29 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. Mitchell 64 So. 3d 391 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. Banks 64 So. 3d 386 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
In State v. Jyles, 96-2669, p. 2 (La.12/12/97), (per curiam), the Louisiana Supreme Court stated that an Anders brief need not tediously catalog every meritless pretrial motion or objection made at trial with a detailed explanation of why the motions or objections lack merit.
State v. Mitchell 64 So. 3d 826 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. Mitchell 64 So. 3d 829 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. Taylor 64 So. 3d 343 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
As required by State v. Jyles, 96-2669 (La.12/12/97), , counsel’s brief includes not only the procedural history and the evidence presented at trial but also “a detailed and reviewable assessment ...
State v. Landers 63 So. 3d 1079 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. Morgan 63 So. 3d 261 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
See also, State v. Jyles, 96-2669 (La.12/12/97), (per curiam).
State of Louisiana v. Heath M. Wiggins La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
12/12/97), Defendant’s appellate counsel filed a brief stating he “has made a conscientious and thorough review of the trial court record and can find no non-frivolous issues to raise on appeal and no rulings of the trial court which would arguable support the appeal.” Defendant’s appellate attorney states that he has notif