Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Carter, 84 So. 3d 499.

33 citing documents.

State of Louisiana v. Michael T. Robinson Denzel West Kirk Powell La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2024
State of Louisiana v. Cortez De'Shun Hines La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2024
State Of Louisiana In The Interest of D.D. La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2024
State of Louisiana Versus Lawrence Sly La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2023
State of Louisiana v. Christopher Gatson La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2023
1/24/12), (quoting State v. Walter, 96-1702, p. 1 (La.
State of Louisiana v. Gerald West La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2023
State of Louisiana v. Jason Ray Craft La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2023
State of Louisiana v. Reginald K. Jackson La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2022
State Of Louisiana v. David H. Brown (Parish of Lafourche) Convictions Affirmed; Death Sentences Reversed; Case Remanded For … La. 2021
State of Louisiana v. Brian Moser La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2020
1/ 24/ 12), State v. Chaisson, 425 So.
State Of Louisiana v. Merrel A. Porche La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2020
State of Louisiana v. Matthew L. Magrini La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2020
State of Louisiana v. Nelson Davis La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2019
State of Louisiana v. Jeffery Lynn Jones La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2018
State v. Jones 254 So. 3d 1221 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
State v. Cartwright 252 So. 3d 1045 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2018
State v. Walker 221 So. 3d 951 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2017
State v. McGill 213 So. 3d 1181 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2017
State of Louisiana v. William Chester Farry Jr. AKA William Chester Farry AKA William C. Farry AKA William … La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
1309, 1317- 8, 182 L.Ed.2d 272 (2012); State v. Carter, 10-0614, pp. 5-6 (La.1/24/12); -9.
State v. Farry 207 So. 3d 436 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
State v. Joshua 201 So. 3d 284 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2016
1/24/12), , cert denied, — U.S. —, 133 S.Ct.
State v. Ross 195 So. 3d 1210 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
State v. Carter, 10-0614, pp. 27-28 (La.1/24/12), ().
State v. McCorvey 187 So. 3d 41 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
counsel “act, in effect, as co-counsel, with each speaking for the defense during different phases of the trial,” results partially in pro se representation, “allowing it without a proper Faretta inquiry can create constitutional difficulties.” Mathieu , p. 8, 68 So.3d at 1020 (quoting 3 LaFave, Criminal Procedure, § 11.5(g), pp. 765-767); See also, State v. Carter, 2010-0614, p. 25 (La.1/24/12), -520 .
State v. King 186 So. 3d 264 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
State v. Carter, 10-0614, p. 7 (La.1/24/12), .
State v. McGuire 179 So. 3d 632 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
State v. Carter, 2010-0614 (La.1/24/12), , cert.
State v. Griffin 176 So. 3d 561 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
State v. Carter, 10-0614, pp. 27-28 (La.1/24/12), .
State v. Boyd 164 So. 3d 259 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
1309, 1317-8 , 182 L.Ed.2d 272 (2012); State v. Carter, 10-0614, pp. 5-6 (La.1/24/12); -9 .
State v. Johnson 165 So. 3d 961 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
art. 643 provides in part: “The court shall order a mental examination of the defendant when it has reasonable ground to doubt the defendant’s mental capacity to proceed.” “The fact that a defendant calls his capacity to proceed into question does not for that reason alone require the trial court to order a mental examination.” State v. Carter, 10-0614 (La.1/24/12), , cert.
State v. Clark 149 So. 3d 443 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
In State v. Carter, 10-0614 (La.01/24/12), , cert.
State v. Stanfield 137 So. 3d 788 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
“Generally, a defendant represented by counsel is bound by the motions and strategic decisions filed by counsel.” State v. Carter, 10-0614, p. 23 (La.1/24/12), [citations omitted].
State v. German 133 So. 3d 179 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
State v. Carter, 10-0614, p. 22 (La.1/24/12), .
State v. George 108 So. 3d 269 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Carter, 10-0614, p. 7 (La.1/24/12), -510 , reh’g denied (3/9/12), cert.
State v. Hayes 107 So. 3d 668 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
What is a “knowing and voluntary waiver” was discussed by the Louisiana Supreme Court in State v. Carter, 10-0614, p. 25 (La.1/24/12) 26, , 520: “[ t]he determination of whether there has been an intelligent waiver of right to counsel must depend, in each case, upon the particular facts and circumstances surrounding that case, including the background, experience, and conduct of the accused.” Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 464 , 58 S.Ct.