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. Cole, 664 So. 2d 367.

57 citing documents.

  • State of Louisiana v. Darrion A. Brown La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2025
    11/27/95), then citing Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 83 S.Ct.
  • State Of Louisiana v. David H. Brown (Parish of Lafourche) Convictions Affirmed; Death Sentences Reversed; Case Remanded For … La. 2021
  • State v. Alexander 267 So. 3d 682 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
    11/27/95), , 370, the defendant was arrested and appeared in court for an initial appearance.
  • State v. Jefferson 261 So. 3d 793 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
  • State v. Walker 221 So. 3d 951 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2017
  • STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS READO NARGO A/K/A RENALDO NARGO La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
  • State v. Nargo 193 So. 3d 1263 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
    State v. Carter, 94-2859, p. 24 (La.11/27/95); .
  • State v. Wells 191 So. 3d 1127 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
  • State v. Preston 178 So. 3d 207 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
    2350 , 129 L.Ed.2d 362 (1994); State v. Carter, 94-2859 (La.11/27/95), .
  • State v. French 79 So. 3d 1155 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    |sIn State v. Carter, 94-2859 (La.11/27/95), , the defendant was arrested and appeared in court for an initial appearance.
  • State v. Martin 72 So. 3d 928 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    Hattaway was partially overruled by State v. Carter, 94-2859 (La.11/27/95), , but not on this issue.
  • State v. Montejo 40 So. 3d 952 La. 2010
    State v. Carter, 94-2859 (La.11/27/95), (“[sjomething more than mere mute acquiescence in the appointment of counsel is necessary to show the defendant has asserted his right to counsel sufficiently to trigger the enhanced protection provided by Michigan v. Jackson’s prophylactic rule”); Montoya v. Collins, 955 F.2d 279 (5th Cir.1992) (the rule of Jack
  • State, in Interest of Kmt 18 So. 3d 183 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2009
    Sta te v. Carter, 1994-2859 (La.11/27/95), .
  • State ex rel. B.A.A. 13 So. 3d 1183 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2009
    State v. Carter, 94-2859 (La.11/27/95), .
  • State Ex Rel. Baa 13 So. 3d 1183 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2009
    State v. Carter, 94-2859 (La.11/27/95), .
  • State v. Reeves 11 So. 3d 1031 La. 2009
    11/27/95), , this court spoke of "constitutional safeguards aimed at preserving the sanctity of the attorney-client relationship,” the court was not referring to the preservation of a particular attorney-client relationship.
  • State v. Robertson 995 So. 2d 650 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
    The right to counsel “is the right of the client rather than the attorney, so that it may be waived by the client without counsel’s participation.” State v. Carter, 94-2859, p. 17 n. 12 (La.11/27/95), (quotation omitted).
  • State v. Savoie 982 So. 2d 119 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
    In State v. Carter, 94-2859 (La.11/27/95); -373 , the Louisiana Supreme Court stated the *121 following regarding a defendant's right to counsel: As correctly noted in Hattaway, the Sixth Amendment right to counsel attaches only after the commencement of adverse judicial criminal proceedings.
  • STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS JOSEPH THOMAS SAVOIE AKA JOSEPH TOMMY SAVOIE AKA JOSEPH THOMAS SAVOY La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
    ists: Article 514 of the Code of Criminal Procedure requires the minutes of court to “show either that the defendant was represented by 2 counsel or that he was informed by the court of the defendants’ right to counsel, including the right to appointed counsel, and that he waived such right.” In State v. Carter, 94-2859 (La.11/27/95); -373, the Louisiana Supreme Court stated the following regarding a defendant’s right to counsel: As correctly noted in Hattaway, the Sixth Amendment right to couns
  • State v. Montejo 974 So. 2d 1238 La. 2008
    The state responds that the law is not fully settled on the consequences of a 72- and State v. Carter, 94-2859 (La.11/27/95), , and notes further that the defendant only stood in mute acquiescence at this hearing, but argues (assuming that a right to counsel attached at that time) that the defendant validly waived his right to the presence of counsel (after a full Mirandization ) prior producing the handwritten letter.
  • State v. Williams 965 So. 2d 541 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2007
    The following passage from State v. Carter, 94-2859 (La.11/27/95), , is illuminating: Although a defendant may sometimes later regret his decision to speak with police, the Sixth Amendment does not disable a criminal defendant from exercising his free will.
  • State v. Lagarde 917 So. 2d 623 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2005
    310 , 136 L.Ed.2d 227 (1996), overruled on other grounds in State v. Carter, 94-2859 (La.11/27/95); .
  • State v. Hopkins 897 So. 2d 854 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2005
    However, the court overruled this holding in State v. Carter, 94-2859 (La.11/27/95), , concluding that after the constitutional right to counsel has attached, whether invoked or not, the defendant may waive it.
  • State v. Wallace 862 So. 2d 286 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
    In State v. Carter, 94-2859 (La.11/27/95), , the Louisiana Supreme Court reiterated that holding in Hattaway , while recognizing that the right to counsel under La.
  • State v. Turner 859 So. 2d 911 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2003
    State v. Carter, 94-2859 (La.11/27/95), ; State v. Ormond, 00-13 (La.App.
  • State v. Tarver 846 So. 2d 851 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
    In support of his argument, the Defendant cites State v. Carter, 94-2859 (La.11/27/95); .
  • State v. Batchelor 823 So. 2d 367 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2002
    State v. Carter, 94-2859 (La.11/27/95), ; State v. Ormond, 00-13 (La.App.
  • State v. Onezime 811 So. 2d 1033 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2002
    In the case of State v. Carter, 94-2859 (La.11/27/95), , the Louisiana Supreme Court reached the following conclusion concerning the right to counsel during interrogations: Once adversary judicial criminal proceedings have commenced against a defendant, he is entitled, by virtue of the Sixth Amendment and La.
  • State v. Hutchinson 803 So. 2d 1120 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
    1335 , 149 L.Ed.2d 321 (2001); State v. Carter, 94-2859 (La.11/27/95), .
  • State v. Broyard 802 So. 2d 845 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
    overruled in part, State v. Carter, 94-2859 (La.11/27/95), , for the proposition that a physical lineup of the accused without the benefit of counsel “during adverse judicial criminal proceedings” violates the Sixth Amendment right to counsel.
  • State v. Diaz 800 So. 2d 1090 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
    State v. Carter, 94-2859 (La.11/27/95), .
  • State v. Ormond 786 So. 2d 187 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2001
    State v. Carter, 94-2859 (La.11/27/95), .
  • Overruled State v. Monroe 784 So. 2d 29 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2001
    The state contends that Hattaway was overruled by State v. Carter, 94-2859 (La.11/27/95), , and that a defendant can make a valid waiver of his right to counsel as long as it is knowing, intelligent and voluntary.
  • State v. Haider 772 So. 2d 189 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2000
    In State v. Carter, 94-2859 (La.11/27/95); -373 , the Louisiana Supreme Court stated the following regarding a defendant's right to counsel: As correctly noted in Hattaway, the Sixth Amendment right to counsel attaches only after the commencement of adverse judicial criminal proceedings.
  • State v. Carter 767 So. 2d 839 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2000
    He also argues that once the right to counsel attached and defendant asserted his right to counsel, any subsequent waiver of rights pursuant to police-initiated interrogation was invalid pursuant to State v. Carter, 94-2859 (La.11/27/95), .
  • State v. Womack-Grey 764 So. 2d 108 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2000
    State v. Carter, 94-2859, p. 24 (La.11/27/95), .
  • State v. Thompson 758 So. 2d 972 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
    State v. Fisher, 97-1133 (La.9/9/98), ; State v. Carter, 94-2859 (La.11/27/95), .
  • State v. Gaar 746 So. 2d 41 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
    In State v. Carter, 94-2859 (La.11/27/95), , a suspect was interrogated by police after counsel had been appointed.
  • State v. Coston 720 So. 2d 714 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1998
    Similarly, in State v. Carter, 94-2859, p. 23 (La.11/27/95), [citation omitted], federal jurisprudence was quoted as establishing that "the magic words, `I want a lawyer,'" need not be spoken to invoke the right to counsel.
  • State v. Fisher 720 So. 2d 1179 La. 1998
    State v. Carter, 94-2859, p. 24 (La.11/27/95); .
  • State v. Carter 712 So. 2d 701 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1998
    [3] Overruled in part on other grounds by State v. Carter, 94-2859 (La.11/27/95), .
  • State v. Gaspard 709 So. 2d 213 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1998
    State v. Carter, 94-2859 (La.11/27/95); .
  • State v. Briley 703 So. 2d 230 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
    The State relies on State v. Carter, 94-2859 (La.11/27/95), arguing that the right to counsel belongs to the defendant, not to his counsel, and thus he was free to waive it.
  • State v. Lemon 698 So. 2d 1057 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1997
    1708 , 64 L.Ed.2d 333 (1980); State v. Carter, 94-2859 (La.11/27/95), .
  • State v. Connolly 700 So. 2d 810 La. 1997
    State v. Carter, 94-KK-2859 (La.11/27/95), .
  • State v. Koon 704 So. 2d 756 La. 1997
    State v. Carter, 94-2859, p. 24 (La.11/27/95), .
  • State v. Pierce 689 So. 2d 740 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
    The Court points out that in State versus Carter, [(La.1995)], that the right to counsel is a right of the client rather than the attorney.
  • State v. Cheathon 682 So. 2d 823 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1996
    State v. Carter, 94-2859 (La.11/27/95), .
  • State v. Pierce 681 So. 2d 478 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
  • State v. Kimble 688 So. 2d 552 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1996