State ex rel. Krol v. 22nd Judicial District Court, Parish of St. Tammany

Supreme Court of Louisiana

State ex rel. Krol v. 22nd Judicial District Court, Parish of St. Tammany

515 So. 2d 442, 1987 La. LEXIS 10723

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedNovember 30, 1987

DocketNo. 87-KH-2364

StatusPublished

This text of 515 So. 2d 442 (State ex rel. Krol v. 22nd Judicial District Court, Parish of St. Tammany) 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. Krol v. 22nd Judicial District Court, Parish of St. Tammany, 515 So. 2d 442, 1987 La. LEXIS 10723 (La. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

In re Krol, Robert; applying for remedial writ; Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court, Div. “A”, No. 68556.

Granted in part; denied in part. The district court is directed to rule on relator’s claim that he was not advised by the trial judge at his multiple bill hearing in 1979 that he had the right to remain silent and to require the state to carry its burden of proving his prior conviction. La.R.S. 15:529.1(D); State v. Johnson, 432 So.2d 815 (La.1983); State v. Jones, 504 So.2d 920 (La.App. 1st Cir.1987). Otherwise, the district court ruled correctly that relator must return to the court where he entered his guilty plea in 1973 and set that conviction aside before attempting to vacate his multiple offender adjudication. State ex rel. Martin v. State, 462 So.2d 637 (La. 1985). To this extent, relator’s application is denied.

MARCUS and LEMMON, JJ., dissent from the order.

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

In re Krol, Robert; applying for remedial writ; Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court, Div. “A”, No. 68556.

Granted in part; denied in part. The district court is directed to rule on relator’s claim that he was not advised by the trial judge at his multiple bill hearing in 1979 that he had the right to remain silent and to require the state to carry its burden of proving his prior conviction. La.R.S. 15:529.1(D); State v. Johnson, 432 So.2d 815 (La.1983); State v. Jones, 504 So.2d 920 (La.App. 1st Cir.1987). Otherwise, the district court ruled correctly that relator must return to the court where he entered his guilty plea in 1973 and set that conviction aside before attempting to vacate his multiple offender adjudication. State ex rel. Martin v. State, 462 So.2d 637 (La. 1985). To this extent, relator’s application is denied.

MARCUS and LEMMON, JJ., dissent from the order.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

515 So. 2d 442, 1987 La. LEXIS 10723, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-krol-v-22nd-judicial-district-court-parish-of-st-tammany-la-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack