case for an evidentiary hearing in Louisiana

2000Confronted with a similar factual situation in State v. James, 94-720 (La.App. 5th Cir. 5/30/95), 656 So.2d 746 , this Court, with one judge dissenting, remanded the case for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his right to trial by jury. [3] Following James , the Louisiana Supreme Court, in State v. Nanlal, 97-0786 (La.9/26/97), 701 So.2d 963 , citing this Court's decision in James with approval, remanded that case for a similar evidentiary hearing.

1998In addressing the issue regarding the absence of a jury trial waiver in State v. James, 94-720 (La.App. 5 Cir. 5/30/95) , 656 So.2d 746 , this court, with one judge dissenting, remanded the case for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his right to trial by jury.

2018In State v. Waters, 00-356 (La. 3/12/01), 780 So.2d 1053 , the defendant raised the issue of conflict of interest for the first time before the supreme court.

2009In State v. Waters, 00-356 (La.3/12/01), 780 So.2d 1053 , the defendant raised the issue of conflict of interest for the first time before the supreme court.

2012This court, on original appeal, cited State v. Cappel, 525 So.2d 335 (La.App. 1 Cir.1988) as authority for remanding the case for an evidentiary hearing.

2000This court, on original appeal, cited State v. Cappel, 525 So.2d 335 (La.App. 1 Cir.1988) as authority for remanding the case for an evidentiary hearing.

2014Id., p. 9, 685 So.2d at 601-02 .

2009It is well settled that ineffective assistance of counsel claims are generally addressed in post-conviction proceedings rather than on direct appeal, State v. Denise, 1998-0541, p. 35 (La.4/3/01), 802 So.2d 1224, 1247-1248 , cert. denied, 534 U.S. 926 , 122 S.Ct. 283 , 151 L.Ed.2d 208 (2001), to allow the trial court to conduct, if warranted, a full evidentiary hearing, State v. Howard, 1998-0064, p. 15 (La.4/23/99), 751 So.2d 783, 802 , cer t. denied, 528 U.S. 974 , 120 S.Ct. 420 , 145 L.Ed.2d 328 (1999).

2009It is well settled that ineffective assistance of counsel claims are generally addressed in post-conviction proceedings rather than on direct appeal, State v. Demise, XXXX-XXXX, p. 35 (La.4/3/01), 802 So.2d 1224, 1247-1248 , cert. denied, 534 U.S. 926 , 122 S.Ct. 283 , 151 L.Ed.2d 208 (2001), to allow the trial court to conduct, if warranted, a full evidentiary hearing, State v. Howard, XXXX-XXXX, p. 15 (La.4/23/99), 751 So.2d 783, 802 , cert, denied, 528 U.S. 974 , 120 S.Ct. 420 , 145 L.Ed.2d 328 (1999).

2009It is well settled that ineffective assistance of counsel claims are generally addressed in post-conviction proceedings rather than on direct appeal, State v. Denise, 1998-0541, p. 35 (La.4/3/01), 802 So.2d 1224, 1247-1248 , cert. denied, 534 U.S. 926 , 122 S.Ct. 283 , 151 L.Ed.2d 208 (2001), to allow the trial court to conduct, if warranted, a full evidentiary hearing, State v. Howard, 1998-0064, p. 15 (La.4/23/99), 751 So.2d 783, 802 , cer t. denied, 528 U.S. 974 , 120 S.Ct. 420 , 145 L.Ed.2d 328 (1999).

2009It is well settled that ineffective assistance of counsel claims are generally addressed in post-conviction proceedings rather than on direct appeal, State v. Demise, XXXX-XXXX, p. 35 (La.4/3/01), 802 So.2d 1224, 1247-1248 , cert. denied, 534 U.S. 926 , 122 S.Ct. 283 , 151 L.Ed.2d 208 (2001), to allow the trial court to conduct, if warranted, a full evidentiary hearing, State v. Howard, XXXX-XXXX, p. 15 (La.4/23/99), 751 So.2d 783, 802 , cert, denied, 528 U.S. 974 , 120 S.Ct. 420 , 145 L.Ed.2d 328 (1999).

2009It is well settled that ineffective assistance of counsel claims are generally addressed in post-conviction proceedings rather than on direct appeal, State v. Denise, 1998-0541, p. 35 (La.4/3/01), 802 So.2d 1224, 1247-1248 , cert. denied, 534 U.S. 926 , 122 S.Ct. 283 , 151 L.Ed.2d 208 (2001), to allow the trial court to conduct, if warranted, a full evidentiary hearing, State v. Howard, 1998-0064, p. 15 (La.4/23/99), 751 So.2d 783, 802 , cer t. denied, 528 U.S. 974 , 120 S.Ct. 420 , 145 L.Ed.2d 328 (1999).

2009It is well settled that ineffective assistance of counsel claims are generally addressed in post-conviction proceedings rather than on direct appeal, State v. Demise, XXXX-XXXX, p. 35 (La.4/3/01), 802 So.2d 1224, 1247-1248 , cert. denied, 534 U.S. 926 , 122 S.Ct. 283 , 151 L.Ed.2d 208 (2001), to allow the trial court to conduct, if warranted, a full evidentiary hearing, State v. Howard, XXXX-XXXX, p. 15 (La.4/23/99), 751 So.2d 783, 802 , cert, denied, 528 U.S. 974 , 120 S.Ct. 420 , 145 L.Ed.2d 328 (1999).

2009It is well settled that ineffective assistance of counsel claims are generally addressed in post-conviction proceedings rather than on direct appeal, State v. Denise, 1998-0541, p. 35 (La.4/3/01), 802 So.2d 1224, 1247-1248 , cert. denied, 534 U.S. 926 , 122 S.Ct. 283 , 151 L.Ed.2d 208 (2001), to allow the trial court to conduct, if warranted, a full evidentiary hearing, State v. Howard, 1998-0064, p. 15 (La.4/23/99), 751 So.2d 783, 802 , cer t. denied, 528 U.S. 974 , 120 S.Ct. 420 , 145 L.Ed.2d 328 (1999).

2009It is well settled that ineffective assistance of counsel claims are generally addressed in post-conviction proceedings rather than on direct appeal, State v. Demise, XXXX-XXXX, p. 35 (La.4/3/01), 802 So.2d 1224, 1247-1248 , cert. denied, 534 U.S. 926 , 122 S.Ct. 283 , 151 L.Ed.2d 208 (2001), to allow the trial court to conduct, if warranted, a full evidentiary hearing, State v. Howard, XXXX-XXXX, p. 15 (La.4/23/99), 751 So.2d 783, 802 , cert, denied, 528 U.S. 974 , 120 S.Ct. 420 , 145 L.Ed.2d 328 (1999).

2009It is well settled that ineffective assistance of counsel claims are generally addressed in post-conviction proceedings rather than on direct appeal, State v. Denise, 1998-0541, p. 35 (La.4/3/01), 802 So.2d 1224, 1247-1248 , cert. denied, 534 U.S. 926 , 122 S.Ct. 283 , 151 L.Ed.2d 208 (2001), to allow the trial court to conduct, if warranted, a full evidentiary hearing, State v. Howard, 1998-0064, p. 15 (La.4/23/99), 751 So.2d 783, 802 , cer t. denied, 528 U.S. 974 , 120 S.Ct. 420 , 145 L.Ed.2d 328 (1999).

2009It is well settled that ineffective assistance of counsel claims are generally addressed in post-conviction proceedings rather than on direct appeal, State v. Demise, XXXX-XXXX, p. 35 (La.4/3/01), 802 So.2d 1224, 1247-1248 , cert. denied, 534 U.S. 926 , 122 S.Ct. 283 , 151 L.Ed.2d 208 (2001), to allow the trial court to conduct, if warranted, a full evidentiary hearing, State v. Howard, XXXX-XXXX, p. 15 (La.4/23/99), 751 So.2d 783, 802 , cert, denied, 528 U.S. 974 , 120 S.Ct. 420 , 145 L.Ed.2d 328 (1999).

2009It is well settled that ineffective assistance of counsel claims are generally addressed in post-conviction proceedings rather than on direct appeal, State v. Denise, 1998-0541, p. 35 (La.4/3/01), 802 So.2d 1224, 1247-1248 , cert. denied, 534 U.S. 926 , 122 S.Ct. 283 , 151 L.Ed.2d 208 (2001), to allow the trial court to conduct, if warranted, a full evidentiary hearing, State v. Howard, 1998-0064, p. 15 (La.4/23/99), 751 So.2d 783, 802 , cer t. denied, 528 U.S. 974 , 120 S.Ct. 420 , 145 L.Ed.2d 328 (1999).

2009It is well settled that ineffective assistance of counsel claims are generally addressed in post-conviction proceedings rather than on direct appeal, State v. Demise, XXXX-XXXX, p. 35 (La.4/3/01), 802 So.2d 1224, 1247-1248 , cert. denied, 534 U.S. 926 , 122 S.Ct. 283 , 151 L.Ed.2d 208 (2001), to allow the trial court to conduct, if warranted, a full evidentiary hearing, State v. Howard, XXXX-XXXX, p. 15 (La.4/23/99), 751 So.2d 783, 802 , cert, denied, 528 U.S. 974 , 120 S.Ct. 420 , 145 L.Ed.2d 328 (1999).

2007Cf. State v. Skipper, 387 So.2d 592 (La.1980)." In Clark, 711 So.2d 738 , this court acknowledged the supreme court's footnote in Morris, but felt that remanding the case for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the defendant executed a knowing and intelligent waiver was a "prudent safeguard of this fundamental right." Id. at 742. [7] We note that in State v. Dorsey, an unpublished opinion bearing docket number 98-610 (La.App. 3 Cir. 12/9/98) , appeal after remand, 00-114 (La.App. 3 Cir. 6/7/00) , 768 So.2d 109 , after the defendant was informed of his right to a trial by jury or a benc

2007Noting that the general rules of contract law are usually considered in determining the validity of a plea agreement, we vacated "the condition of probation requiring Defendant to pay restitution for the aggregate damages suffered by all victims and . . . remand[ed] the case for an evidentiary hearing to determine the nature of the plea agreement and whether the entire agreement is invalidated by the vacation of the restitution to victims of the offenses to which Defendant did not plead guilty." Id. at 736 . *815 On remand, the trial court held an evidentiary hearing as ordered but failed to d

2007Cf. State v. Skipper, 387 So.2d 592 (La.1980)." In Clark, 711 So.2d 738 , this court acknowledged the supreme court's footnote in Morris, but felt that remanding the case for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the defendant executed a knowing and intelligent waiver was a "prudent safeguard of this fundamental right." Id. at 742. [7] We note that in State v. Dorsey, an unpublished opinion bearing docket number 98-610 (La.App. 3 Cir. 12/9/98) , appeal after remand, 00-114 (La.App. 3 Cir. 6/7/00) , 768 So.2d 109 , after the defendant was informed of his right to a trial by jury or a benc

2007As a result of the error, this court vacated the defendant's conviction and sentence and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings. [7] See also State v. Arnold, 30,282 (La.App. 2 Cir. 1/21/98), 706 So.2d 578 , where the second circuit reached the same conclusion under similar circumstances, but remanded the case for an evidentiary hearing instead of reversing the defendant's conviction.

2007In State v. Onstead, 05-410 (La.App. 5 Cir. 1/17/06) , 922 So.2d 622 , after remanding the case for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether defendant had knowingly and intelligently waived his right to a jury trial, this Court decided the evidence did not support the determination that the defendant's jury trial waiver was knowing and intelligent and, therefore, vacated the defendant's conviction and sentence and remanded the case for a new trial.

2006State v. Onstead, 03-1413 (La.App. 5 Cir. 5/26/04) , 875 So.2d 908, 918 .

2003In State v. Lobato, 603 So.2d 739 (La.1992) the Louisiana Supreme Court conditionally affirmed the defendant’s conviction and remanded the case for an evidentiary hearing on the issue of whether defendant was prejudiced by his counsel’s dual representation.

2001Similarly, this Court, in State v. Pierre , [4] 98-1123, p. 9 (La.App.5 Cir.4/14/99), 733 So.2d 674 , 679 addressed sufficiency and the excessiveness of sentence, conditionally affirmed the conviction and sentence and remanded for an evidentiary hearing on the waiver issue.