State ex rel. Hendry v. Henderson

Supreme Court of Louisiana

State ex rel. Hendry v. Henderson

242 So. 2d 888, 257 La. 556, 1971 La. LEXIS 4639

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedJanuary 27, 1971

DocketNo. 51110

StatusPublished

This text of 242 So. 2d 888 (State ex rel. Hendry v. Henderson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Louisiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State ex rel. Hendry v. Henderson, 242 So. 2d 888, 257 La. 556, 1971 La. LEXIS 4639 (La. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

The return o£ [557]*557the trial court shows that the application for writ of habeas corpus pending in that court has now been acted upon, and was denied. The application for mandamus is moot. Petitioner complains in support of his alternative prayer for habeas corpus only that he entered a plea of guilty without full knowledge of his constitutional rights, and that the record does not show an intelligent waiver of his rights. Although this is a pre-Boykin case, therefore not requiring an affirmative “record”, the minutes reflect: “Accused party present in open court advised of his rights by the court.” The minutes further show that counsel was appointed, and that the plea was entered with the assistance of counsel. There is no complaint that counsel did not discharge his obligation to the accused, and we assume that he did, and we are informed that the court further advised the accused of his legal rights. The alternative writ of habeas corpus is also without merit.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

The return o£ [557]*557the trial court shows that the application for writ of habeas corpus pending in that court has now been acted upon, and was denied. The application for mandamus is moot. Petitioner complains in support of his alternative prayer for habeas corpus only that he entered a plea of guilty without full knowledge of his constitutional rights, and that the record does not show an intelligent waiver of his rights. Although this is a pre-Boykin case, therefore not requiring an affirmative “record”, the minutes reflect: “Accused party present in open court advised of his rights by the court.” The minutes further show that counsel was appointed, and that the plea was entered with the assistance of counsel. There is no complaint that counsel did not discharge his obligation to the accused, and we assume that he did, and we are informed that the court further advised the accused of his legal rights. The alternative writ of habeas corpus is also without merit.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

242 So. 2d 888, 257 La. 556, 1971 La. LEXIS 4639, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-hendry-v-henderson-la-1971.