Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Jones, 707 So. 2d 975.

19 citing documents.

  • State of Louisiana v. Robert Leroy McCoy 218 So. 3d 535 La. 2016
  • State of Louisiana v. Marcus Guillory La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2015
    3 Cir. 10/12/98), as follows: Addressing whether the presence of retained counsel automatically bars a later request by an indigent defendant for state funded auxiliary services, the Louisiana Supreme Court in State v. Jones, 97-2593 (La.3/4/98); stated: “[W]e find that the retention of private counsel from a collateral source at no cost to defendant does not rob the defendant of his right to a fair trial and thus defendant may be entitled to State funding for auxiliary services.
  • State v. Stipe 167 So. 3d 942 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
    On June 22, 2009, this Court denied the stay order and the writ, stating in pertinent part: *956 Relator cited State v. Jones, 1997-2593 (La.3/4/98), , 977 to emphasize the State’s obligation to provide an indigent defendant’s counsel with the basic tools of an adequate defense at no cost to the defendant.
  • State v. Bell 53 So. 3d 437 La. 2010
    206 , 455 S.E.2d 575 (1995); State v. Jones, 97-2593 (La.3/4/98), .
  • State v. Reeves 11 So. 3d 1031 La. 2009
    In State v. Jones, 1997-2593 (La.3/4/98), , the defendant’s father retained an attorney to represent his son.
  • State v. Sims 968 So. 2d 721 La. 2007
    VI; La Const. art. I, § 13; State v. Jones, 97-2593, p. 2 (La.3/4/98), .
  • State of Louisiana v. Leon D. Fussell La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
  • State v. Fussell 941 So. 2d 109 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
    See State v. Jones, 97-2593 (La.3/4/98), .
  • State v. Lee 879 So. 2d 173 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
    State v. Jones, 1997-2593 (La.3/4/98), ; Touchet, 642 So.2d at 1215 ; State v. Jeff, XXXX-XXXX (La.App.
  • State v. Lookadoo 847 So. 2d 645 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
    “As a general proposition a person accused in a criminal trial has the right to counsel of his choice.” State v. Jones, 97-2593, p. 3 (La.3/4/98), , -71 (La.1980); La.
  • State v. Marshall 843 So. 2d 469 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
    State v. Jones, 97-2593 (La.3/4/98), , (-71 (La.1980)); La.
  • State v. Griffin 793 So. 2d 415 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
    In State v. Jones, 97-2593, pp. 2-3 (La.3/4/98), -77 , the Louisiana Supreme Court discussed the indigent defendant’s right to counsel: While ....
  • State v. Frank 803 So. 2d 1 La. 2001
    The court's most recent pronouncement on this subject is found in State v. Jones, 97-2593, p. 4 (La.3/4/98), , where it held that the retention of private counsel from a collateral source of funds at no cost to the defendant did not affect a defendant's ability to prove indigency.
  • State v. Harrison 782 So. 2d 86 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
    “As a general proposition a person accused in a criminal trial has the right to counsel of his choice.” State v. Jones, 97-2593, p. 3 (La.3/4/98), , (-71 (La.1980)); La.
  • State v. Givens 776 So. 2d 443 La. 2001
    Const. art. I, § 13; State v. Jones, 97-2593, pp. 2-3 (La.3/4/98), -77 (-71 (La.1980)).
  • State v. Marshall 774 So. 2d 244 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2000
    "`As a general proposition a person accused in a criminal trial has the right to counsel of his choice.'" State v. Jones, 97-2593, p. 3 (La.3/4/98), , -71 (La.1980); La.
  • State v. Jeff 761 So. 2d 574 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
    State v. Jones, 97-2593 (La.3/4/98), ; Touchet, 642 So.2d at 1215 .
  • State v. Givens 750 So. 2d 242 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
    In State v. Jones, 97-2593 (La.3/4/98), , the defendant, who was charged with first degree murder, had been represented by indigent defenders when a new attorney enrolled as counsel.
  • State v. Abdullah 722 So. 2d 23 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1998
    Addressing whether the presence of retained counsel automatically bars a later request by an indigent defendant for state funded auxiliary services, the Louisiana Supreme Court in State v. Jones, 97-2593 (La.3/4/98); , stated: "[W]e find that the retention of private counsel from a collateral source at no cost to defendant does not rob the defendant of his right to a fair trial and thus defendant may be entitled to State funding for auxiliary services.