defendant argues defense in Louisiana

2010ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR 1: The defendant argues that his defense counsel’s failure to object to the ex-cessiveness of the fifteen year sentence or to file a motion to reconsider sentence at the October 27, 2008 resentencing constituted ineffectiveness. |sTo establish ineffectiveness under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), the defendant bears the burden of demonstrating that the required factors as elucidated were present.

2010ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR 1: The defendant argues that his defense counsel’s failure to object to the ex-cessiveness of the fifteen year sentence or to file a motion to reconsider sentence at the October 27, 2008 resentencing constituted ineffectiveness. |sTo establish ineffectiveness under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), the defendant bears the burden of demonstrating that the required factors as elucidated were present.

2024In pro se assignments of error numbers five and eight, he argues the trial court erred in allowing him to plead guilty pro se and stipulate to the habitual offender bill of information without a hearing pursuant to Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 , 95 S. Ct. 2525 , 45 L.Ed.2d 562 ( 1975).

2024In pro se assignments of error numbers five and eight, he argues the trial court erred in allowing him to plead guilty pro se and stipulate to the habitual offender bill of information without a hearing pursuant to Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 , 95 S. Ct. 2525 , 45 L.Ed.2d 562 ( 1975).

2016“As a general rule, claims for ineffective assistance of counsel are more properly raised by application for post-conviction relief in the trial court where a full evidentiary hearing can be conducted if warranted.” State v. Howard, 1998-0064, p. 15 (La.4/23/99), 751 So.2d 783, 802 .

2009PRO SE ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NUMBERS 1, 2 AND 3 By these assignments, the defendant argues that his defense was prejudiced by having to go to trial without a copy of the transcript of his preliminary hearing because he was unable to prove that the arresting officers gave perjured testimony at trial. “[T]he suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution.” Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87 , 83 S.Ct. 1194, 1196-97 , 10 L

2009PRO SE ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NUMBERS 1, 2 AND 3 By these assignments, the defendant argues that his defense was prejudiced by having to go to trial without a copy of the transcript of his preliminary hearing because he was unable to prove that the arresting officers gave perjured testimony at trial. “[T]he suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution.” Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87 , 83 S.Ct. 1194, 1196-97 , 10 L

2008In State v. Poche, 05-1042 (La.App. 3 Cir. 3/1/06) , 924 So.2d 1225 , the accused alleged the trial court did not adequately determine his capacity to waive his right to counsel.

2007This court discussed ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to file a motion to reconsider sentence in State v. Findlay, 06-1050, p. 4 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2/7/07), 949 So.2d 609, 611-12 , as follows: This court considered a similar issue in State v. Prudhomme, 02-511, p. 16 (La.App. 3 Cir. 10/30/02), 829 So.2d 1166, 1177 , writ denied, 02-3230 (La.10/10/03), 855 So.2d 324 , stating: Failure to file a motion to reconsider the sentence does not necessarily constitute ineffective assistance of counsel.

2007This court discussed ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to file a motion to reconsider sentence in State v. Findlay, 06-1050, p. 4 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2/7/07), 949 So.2d 609, 611-12 , as follows: This court considered a similar issue in State v. Prudhomme, 02-511, p. 16 (La.App. 3 Cir. 10/30/02), 829 So.2d 1166, 1177 , writ denied, 02-3230 (La.10/10/03), 855 So.2d 324 , stating: Failure to file a motion to reconsider the sentence does not necessarily constitute ineffective assistance of counsel.

2007This court discussed ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to file a motion to reconsider sentence in State v. Findlay, 06-1050, p. 4 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2/7/07), 949 So.2d 609, 611-12 , as follows: This court considered a similar issue in State v. Prudhomme, 02-511, p. 16 (La.App. 3 Cir. 10/30/02), 829 So.2d 1166, 1177 , writ denied, 02-3230 (La.10/10/03), 855 So.2d 324 , stating: Failure to file a motion to reconsider the sentence does not necessarily constitute ineffective assistance of counsel.

1998Specifically, he urges that his possession of a toy pistol should not have been considered an aggravating factor because he should not be punished for the "possibility of harm posed by an overzealous law enforcement officers in their attempts to foil the perpetration of the crime ..." On this issue, the supreme court in State v. Green, 409 So.2d 563 (La.1982) stated the following: The use of an inherently harmless object in a manner that creates circumstances likely to produce death or great bodily harm results in the inherently harmless object being a dangerous weapon within the provisions of

1993The relator’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is to be assessed by the two part test of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984); State v. Fuller, 454 So.2d 119 (La.1984).

1989The defendant argues that the rule of lenity in statutory construction applies so that the lesser punishment should be imposed, State v. Boowell, 406 So.2d 213 (La.1982).

1989In State v. Simpson, 464 So.2d 1104 (La.App. 3rd Cir.1985) the defendant was convicted of three counts of simple criminal damage to property.

1987Defendant cites Jaeckle v. Dresser Industries, Inc., 447 So.2d 15 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1984), writ granted, 450 So.2d 356 (La.1984) as authority for such proposition.

1987Defendant cites Jaeckle v. Dresser Industries, Inc., 447 So.2d 15 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1984), writ granted, 450 So.2d 356 (La.1984) as authority for such proposition.

1985Gregoire v. Ohio Casualty Insurance Co., 158 So.2d 379 (La.App. 1st Cir.1963).