Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
6 Louisiana opinions name it 1 courts 1986–2016 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Louisiana courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Jamesgreen1 sentence1998See also State v. James, 458 So.2d 501 (La.App. 4th Cir.1984); State v. Washington, 406 So.2d 191 (La.1981). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Dunngreen1 sentence1986See also State v. Bland, 419 So.2d 1227 (La.1982), and State v. Dunn, 390 So.2d 525 (La.1980). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Blandgreen1 sentence1986See also State v. Bland, 419 So.2d 1227 (La.1982), and State v. Dunn, 390 So.2d 525 (La.1980). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Louisiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Tucker
green
2 sentences1998App. 4th Cir.1984), this Court, relying on State v. Halsell, 403 So.2d 688 (La.1981) and State v. Tucker, 405 So.2d 506 (La.1981), found that a well executed waiver of rights form could be used in conjunction with a transcript of the colloquy to prove that the defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his rights. 1995We distinguish State v. Tucker, 405 So.2d 506 (La.1981), where, in the context of a multiple offender proceeding, the court held that a minute entry concerning an abbreviated colloquy along with a well executed waiver of rights form signed by defendant, his attorney, and the trial judge constituted a sufficient affirmative showing in the record that defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his right to trial by jury, right to confront his accusers and privilege against compulsory self-incrimination. | 3 | 1986–1998 |
State v. Halsell
green
2 sentences1998App. 4th Cir.1984), this Court, relying on State v. Halsell, 403 So.2d 688 (La.1981) and State v. Tucker, 405 So.2d 506 (La.1981), found that a well executed waiver of rights form could be used in conjunction with a transcript of the colloquy to prove that the defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his rights. 1986In State v. Halsell, 403 So.2d 688 (La.1981), the Supreme Court stated: “While it is preferable for the trial judge to conduct a colloquy with the defendant to ascertain the validity of the plea, such a colloquy may not be indispensable, as long as the record contains some other affirmative showing to support the plea.” In State v. Tucker, 405 So.2d 506 (La.1981), the Supreme Court found that a minute entry concerning an abbreviated plea colloquy along with a well executed waiver of rights form constituted a sufficient showing of a valid Boykin waiver. | 2 | 1986–1998 |
State v. Hunt
green
1 sentence2016State v. Hunt, 2009-1589 (La.12/1/09), 25 So.3d 746 . | 1 | 2016–2016 |
State v. Shelton
green
1 sentence2013State v. Shelton, 621 So.2d at 776-77 . | 1 | 2013–2013 |
State v. Deville
green
1 sentence2005In State v. Deville, supra , the Louisiana Supreme Court held that the state is entitled to rely on a well executed waiver form in discharging its initial burden of proving a prior valid conviction for DWI. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
State v. Washington
green
1 sentence1998See also State v. James, 458 So.2d 501 (La.App. 4th Cir.1984); State v. Washington, 406 So.2d 191 (La.1981). | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.