Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Nanlal, 701 So. 2d 963.

58 citing documents.

Followed State of Louisiana v. Erick Gail Gragg La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2022
9/26/97), the record was silent as to whether the defendant waived his right to a jury trial.
State Of Louisiana v. Dawune R. Lee La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2021
9/ 26/ 97), State v. Chavis, 2011- 1685 ( La.
State v. Duhon 270 So. 3d 597 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
State v. Williams 262 So. 3d 337 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
9/26/97), , we remand for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his right to a jury trial.
State v. Mahogany 225 So. 3d 489 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
State v. Mahogany 191 So. 3d 615 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
State v. Nanlal, 97-0786 (La.9/26/97), .
State v. Morris 178 So. 3d 1028 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
See also State v. Nanlal, 97-0786 (La.9/26/97), ; State v. Brual, 98-657 (La.App.
State v. Edwards 133 So. 3d 132 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
Cf. State v. Nanlal, 97-0796 (La.9/26/97), (per curiam).
State v. Welch 115 So. 3d 490 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
See State v. Nanlal, 97-0786 (La.9/26/97), .
State of Louisiana v. Ben James Thompson La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
State v. Thompson 100 So. 3d 375 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
See State v. Nanlal, 97-786 (La.9/26/97), .
State v. Carter 96 So. 3d 1283 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
However, in State v. Nanlal, 97-0786 (La.9/26/97), , the Louisiana Supreme Court set out a procedure by which the case is initially remanded to the trial court for an eviden-tiary hearing on the question of whether the defendant validly waived the right to a jury trial.
State v. Abbott 97 So. 3d 1066 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
See State v. Nanlal, 97-786 (La.9/26/97), ; Lokey, supra.
State of Louisiana v. A.D. L La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
See State v. Nanlal, 97-0786 (La.9/26/97)
State v. A.D.L. 92 So. 3d 989 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
See State v. Nanlal, 97-0786 (La.9/26/97), .
State v. Fortenberry 73 So. 3d 391 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
Accordingly, we conditionally affirm the conviction and sentence of Fortenberry; but the case is remanded, in accordance with State v. Nanlal, 97-0786 (La.9/26/97), , for a hearing to determine whether Fortenberry knowingly and intelligently waived his right to a jury trial.
State of Louisiana v. A. D. L. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
State v. A.D.L. 64 So. 3d 448 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2011
If he did not, the trial judge must set aside the conviction and sentence and set the case for further proceedings as dictated by the holding in [State u] Nanlal [, 97-786 (La.9/26/97), ].
State v. Dominguez 52 So. 3d 1117 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
See State v. Nanlal, 97-0786 (La.9/26/97), .
State v. Howard 37 So. 3d 1099 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
State v. Nanlal, 97-0786 (La.9/26/97), .
State v. Miller 982 So. 2d 854 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2008
Thus, the Court conditionally affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence and remanded the case to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing on the question of whether the defendant validly waived the right to a jury trial pursuant to State v. Nanlal, 97-786 (La.9/26/97), .
State of Louisiana v. Archie Lewis Charles La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
9/26/97), and remanded the case with instructions to the trial court as follows: (1) conduct an evidentiary hearing within thirty days of this date to determine whether defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his right to trial by jury and (2) re-lodge the appella
State v. Mathieu 960 So. 2d 296 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2007
In State v. Nanlal, 97-0786 (La.9/26/97), , the issue was whether the defendant validly waived his right to a jury trial through counsel in open court and in his presence before trial.
State of Louisiana v. Lloyd Fuslier La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
9/26/97), and remanded the case with instructions to the trial court as follows: (1) conduct an evidentiary hearing within thirty days of this date to determine whether defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his right to trial by jury and (2) re-lodge the appellate record, supplemented with
State v. Fuslier 954 So. 2d 866 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
However, instead of reversing the defendant's conviction and sentence, this court opted to follow the procedure adopted by the first and fifth circuits, and approved by the supreme court in State v. Nanlal, 97-786 (La.9/26/97), , and remanded the case with instructions to the trial court as follows: (1) conduct an evidentiary hearing within thirty days of this date to determine whether defendant knowingly and intelligently *876 waived his right to trial by jury and (2) re-lodge the appellate rec
State v. RWW 953 So. 2d 131 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
See State v. Nanlal, 97-0786 (La.9/26/97), (wherein the supreme court remanded the case for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the defendant validly waived his right to trial by jury) and State v. Rodriguez, 97-501 (La.App.
State of Louisiana v. R.W.W. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
9/26/97), (wherein the supreme court remanded the case for an evidentiary hearing 12 to determine whether the defendant validly waived his right to trial by jury) and State v. Rodriguez, 97-501 (La.App.
State v. R.W.W. 953 So. 2d 131 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2007
See State v. Nanlal, 97-0786 (La.9/26/97), (wherein the supreme court remanded the case for an evidentiary hearing 11sto determine whether the defendant validly waived his right to trial by jury) and State v. Rodriguez, 97-501 (La.App.
State v. White 948 So. 2d 309 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2006
In accordance with the procedure set forth in State v. Nanlal, 97-0786 (La.9/26/97), , we hereby remand the matter to the district court for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the defendant executed a valid waiver of his right to trial by jury.
State v. Davis 942 So. 2d 1196 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
5th Cir.1/26/99), ; State v. Nanlal, 97-0786 (La.9/26/97), ; State v. Stoltz, 98-235 (La.App.
State v. Miller 945 So. 2d 773 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2006
[30] See, State v. Nanlal, 97-786 (La.9/26/97), .
State v. Singleton 922 So. 2d 647 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2006
However, the Louisiana Supreme Court, in State v. Nanlal, 97-0786 (La.9/26/97), , set forth a procedure by which the case is initially remanded to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing on the question of whether defendant validly waived the right to a jury trial.
State v. Onstead 922 So. 2d 622 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2006
In remanding the instant case for an evidentiary hearing, this Court followed the procedures set forth in State v. Nanlal, 97-0786 (La.9/26/97), .
State v. Goodwin 908 So. 2d 56 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2005
However, in State v. Nanlal, 97-0786 (La.9/26/97), , the Louisiana Supreme Court set out a procedure by which the case is initially remanded to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing on the question of whether the defendant validly waived the right to a jury trial.
State v. Onstead 875 So. 2d 908 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2004
[18] See State v. Nanlal, 97-786 (La.9/26/97), -964 ; State v. Hampton, 00-1002 (La.App.
State v. Zeringue 862 So. 2d 186 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2003
However, the Louisiana *194 Supreme Court, in State v. Nanlal, 97-0786 (La.9/26/97), , set out a procedure by which the case is initially remanded to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing on the question of whether the defendant validly waived the right to a jury trial.
State v. Thompson 848 So. 2d 703 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
Richardson , 2002-2348, p. 2, 841 So.2d at 40 (citing State v. Nanlal, 97-0786 (La.9/26/97), ).
State v. Terrase 841 So. 2d 947 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2003
However, the Louisiana Supreme Court, in State v. Nanlal, 97-0786 (La.9/26/97), , set out a procedure by which the case is initially remanded to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing on the question of whether the defendant validly waived the right to a jury trial.
State v. Lokey 840 So. 2d 653 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2003
However, the Louisiana Supreme Court, in State v. Nanlal, 97-0786 (La.9/26/97), -964, set out a procedure by which the case is initially remanded to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing on the question of whether the defendant validly waived the right to a jury trial.
State v. Richardson 841 So. 2d 39 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
State v. Nanlal, 97-0786 (La.9/26/97), .
State v. Armant 839 So. 2d 271 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2003
In State v. Nanlal, 97-0786 (La.9/26/97), , the Louisiana Supreme Court also chose to remand for a similar evidentiary hearing, citing this Court's decision in James.
State v. Moses 806 So. 2d 83 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
In State v. Nanlal, 97-0786 (La.9/26/97), , the Louisiana Supreme Court indicated that where the record does not reflect a valid waiver of a defendant’s right to trial by jury, the proper procedure is to remand the case to the district court for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the defendant validly waived that right.
Perron v. Evangeline Parish Police Jury 780 So. 2d 515 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2001
3 Cir. 4/9/97) , , writs granted, 97-1914 (La.9/26/97), , 97-1937 (La.9/26/97), , affirmed in part and reversed in part, 97-1914, 97-1937 (La.3/4/98), .
Pavich v. St. Landry Parish Police Jury 780 So. 2d 608 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2001
Landry Parish Police Jury, 97-1914, 97-1937 (La.9/26/97); .
State v. Hampton 782 So. 2d 1045 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2001
In State v. Nanlal, 97-0786, p. 1 (La.9/26/97), , the Louisiana Supreme Court enunciated a procedure under which the case was remanded to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing on the question of whether the defendant had validly waived the right to a jury trial.
State v. Dorsey 768 So. 2d 109 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
See, e.g., State v. Nanlal, 97-0786 (La.9/26/97); , and State v. Clark, 97-1064 (La.App.
State v. Vortisch 763 So. 2d 765 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2000
[3] Following James , the Louisiana Supreme Court, in State v. Nanlal, 97-0786 (La.9/26/97), , citing this Court's decision in James with approval, remanded that case for a similar evidentiary hearing.
State v. James 751 So. 2d 419 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2000
State v. Nanlal, 97-0786 (La.9/26/97), .
State v. Pierre 733 So. 2d 674 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1999
State v. Nanlal, 97-0786 (La.9/26/97), ; State v. Stoltz, 98-235 (La.App.
State v. Herrera 729 So. 2d 75 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1999