defendant assigned error in Louisiana

2020In the recent decision of Ramos, 140 S. Ct. at 1397 , the United States Supreme Court abrogated Apodaca v. Oregon,4 406 U. S. 404 , 92 S. Ct. 1628 , 32 L.

2020In the recent decision of Ramos, 140 S. Ct. at 1397 , the United States Supreme Court abrogated Apodaca v. Oregon,4 406 U. S. 404 , 92 S. Ct. 1628 , 32 L.

2020In the recent decision of Ramos, 140 S. Ct. at 1397 , the United States Supreme Court abrogated Apodaca v. Oregon,4 406 U. S. 404 , 92 S. Ct. 1628 , 32 L.

2019The Louisiana Supreme Court held: “[w]ithout a complete record from which a transcript for appeal may be prepared, a defendant’s right of appellate review is rendered meaningless”; State v. Jones, 351 So.2d 1194 (La. 1977), where the Louisiana Supreme Court found the omission of a portion of the hearing on a motion for change of venue was not an “inconsequential omission” and required reversal because it was impossible to assess the existence of community prejudice or to ascertain whether the evidence supported the defendant’s contention that the motion was improvidently denied; State v. Parke

2019The Louisiana Supreme Court held: “[w]ithout a complete record from which a transcript for appeal may be prepared, a defendant’s right of appellate review is rendered meaningless”; State v. Jones, 351 So.2d 1194 (La. 1977), where the Louisiana Supreme Court found the omission of a portion of the hearing on a motion for change of venue was not an “inconsequential omission” and required reversal because it was impossible to assess the existence of community prejudice or to ascertain whether the evidence supported the defendant’s contention that the motion was improvidently denied; State v. Parke

2019App. 5 Cir. 12/19/13); 131 So.3d 1013 , where this Court found the defendant was deprived of his right to appellate review due to a malfunctioning of the court reporter’s recording equipment resulting in the omission of portions of the hearing transcript necessary to a review of the defendant’s motion to suppress. 18-KA-663 56 SUSAN M.

2011Statutes relative to this appeal are clear. 4 6In State v. Wafer, 31,078 (La.App.2d Cir.9/23/98), 719 So.2d 156 , writ denied, 99-1114 (La.10/1/99), 747 So.2d 1137 , the defendant assigned as error the impropriety of the state’s closing argument, after having objected at trial to only one of the statements.

2011Statutes relative to this appeal are clear. 4 6In State v. Wafer, 31,078 (La.App.2d Cir.9/23/98), 719 So.2d 156 , writ denied, 99-1114 (La.10/1/99), 747 So.2d 1137 , the defendant assigned as error the impropriety of the state’s closing argument, after having objected at trial to only one of the statements.

2011Relying upon State v. Hart, 96-0697 (La.3/7/97), 691 So.2d 651 , and La.

2006In State v. Serio, 94-131 (La.App. 5 Cir. 7/01/94) , 641 So.2d 604 , writ denied 94-2025 (La.12/16/94), 648 So.2d 388 , recons. denied, 94-2025 (La.3/17/95), 651 So.2d 261 , the defendant assigned as error a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to object to the trial court's failure to include the offense of attempt to promote prostitution in the jury charge.

2006In State v. Serio, 94-131 (La.App. 5 Cir. 7/01/94) , 641 So.2d 604 , writ denied 94-2025 (La.12/16/94), 648 So.2d 388 , recons. denied, 94-2025 (La.3/17/95), 651 So.2d 261 , the defendant assigned as error a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to object to the trial court's failure to include the offense of attempt to promote prostitution in the jury charge.

2006In State v. Serio, 94-131 (La.App. 5 Cir. 7/01/94) , 641 So.2d 604 , writ denied 94-2025 (La.12/16/94), 648 So.2d 388 , recons. denied, 94-2025 (La.3/17/95), 651 So.2d 261 , the defendant assigned as error a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to object to the trial court's failure to include the offense of attempt to promote prostitution in the jury charge.

1998In State v. Strain, 585 So.2d 540 (La.1991), the Louisiana Supreme Court, addressing a challenge to the State’s use of a DWI guilty plea as a predicate, articulated the requirements for a valid waiver of the right to counsel, to-wit: The judge, in accepting a waiver of counsel at trial, should advise the accused of the nature of the charges and the penalty range, should inquire into the accused’s age, education and mental condition, and should determine according to the totality of the circumstances whether the accused understands the significance of the waiver.... there must be a sufficient i

1996In State v. Sepulvado, 367 So.2d 762 (La. 1979) cited by the majority, the defendant assigned as error constitutional excessiveness.

1993The defendant assigned error in the denial of his motion for new trial "in that there was absolute insufficient evidence for the conviction..." and that the defendant should be granted a new trial "simply in the interest of justice, if for no other reason." The defendant claims that under the standard of Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 , 99 S.Ct. 2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 , rehearing denied, 444 U.S. 890 , 100 S.Ct. 195 , 62 L.Ed.2d 126 (1979), the evidence presented was insufficient to sustain defendant's conviction.

1993The defendant assigned error in the denial of his motion for new trial "in that there was absolute insufficient evidence for the conviction..." and that the defendant should be granted a new trial "simply in the interest of justice, if for no other reason." The defendant claims that under the standard of Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 , 99 S.Ct. 2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 , rehearing denied, 444 U.S. 890 , 100 S.Ct. 195 , 62 L.Ed.2d 126 (1979), the evidence presented was insufficient to sustain defendant's conviction.

1993The defendant assigned error in the denial of his motion for new trial "in that there was absolute insufficient evidence for the conviction..." and that the defendant should be granted a new trial "simply in the interest of justice, if for no other reason." The defendant claims that under the standard of Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 , 99 S.Ct. 2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 , rehearing denied, 444 U.S. 890 , 100 S.Ct. 195 , 62 L.Ed.2d 126 (1979), the evidence presented was insufficient to sustain defendant's conviction.

1988Relying on State v. Smith, 327 So.2d 355 (La.1975), this court in Willis, supra, stated there would be no violation of the state’s duty to provide notice under Art. 768 if the state was unaware of the statement and did not intentionally try to solicit it from the witness.

1988In State v. Willis, supra, the defendant assigned as error the introduction of testimony by a defense witness under cross-examination regarding a statement made to him by defendant when prior notice of the statement had not been given.

1988Relying on State v. Smith, 327 So.2d 355 (La.1975), this court in Willis, supra, stated there would be no violation of the state’s duty to provide notice under Art. 768 if the state was unaware of the statement and did not intentionally try to solicit it from the witness.

1980In Scarbrock v. Fowler, supra, there is no indication in the opinion that the defendant assigned as error the $2,000 general damage award.