State ex rel. Madison v. Henderson

Supreme Court of Louisiana

State ex rel. Madison v. Henderson

240 So. 2d 742, 256 La. 1013, 1970 La. LEXIS 3471

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedNovember 23, 1970

DocketNo. 50943

StatusPublished

This text of 240 So. 2d 742 (State ex rel. Madison 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. Madison v. Henderson, 240 So. 2d 742, 256 La. 1013, 1970 La. LEXIS 3471 (La. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

Application denied. The showing made is insufficient to warrant the exercise of our original or supervisory jurisdiction. The minutes reflect that applicant was represented by counsel at arraignment. This is confirmed by the return of the trial judge.

BARHAM,

Justice, concurs being of the opinion that the minutes show intelligent waiver of counsel. They state: “Defendant * * * being duly questioned by the court, announced that he did not have an attorney, and did not desire that an attorney be appointed by the court to represent him. * * * ” The appointment of counsel thereafter for consultation before plea, was an additional safeguard — not required —and it can not be the basis for an allegation now of incompetent counsel.

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

Application denied. The showing made is insufficient to warrant the exercise of our original or supervisory jurisdiction. The minutes reflect that applicant was represented by counsel at arraignment. This is confirmed by the return of the trial judge.

BARHAM,

Justice, concurs being of the opinion that the minutes show intelligent waiver of counsel. They state: “Defendant * * * being duly questioned by the court, announced that he did not have an attorney, and did not desire that an attorney be appointed by the court to represent him. * * * ” The appointment of counsel thereafter for consultation before plea, was an additional safeguard — not required —and it can not be the basis for an allegation now of incompetent counsel.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

240 So. 2d 742, 256 La. 1013, 1970 La. LEXIS 3471, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-madison-v-henderson-la-1970.