State ex rel. Simmons v. State

Louisiana Court of Appeal

State ex rel. Simmons v. State

592 So. 2d 513, 1992 La. App. LEXIS 211, 1992 WL 11224

CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal

DecidedJanuary 7, 1992

DocketNo. KW 91 2219

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 592 So. 2d 513 (State ex rel. Simmons v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Louisiana Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State ex rel. Simmons v. State, 592 So. 2d 513, 1992 La. App. LEXIS 211, 1992 WL 11224 (La. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

WRIT DENIED: Since relator is represented by counsel, he should proceed through his attorney. Relator has no right to be both represented and representative. See State v. McCabe, 420 So.2d 955 (La. 1982); State v. Bodley, 394 So.2d 584 (La. 1981).

This Court will not review the merits of an application filed by a pro se applicant who is represented by counsel unless the applicant alleges deficiencies in the performance of his counsel and has presented that complaint to the district court. Herein, if relator seeks to resume the hearing on his application for post conviction relief or complain of his counsel’s performance, he should first address those complaints to the district court.

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

WRIT DENIED: Since relator is represented by counsel, he should proceed through his attorney. Relator has no right to be both represented and representative. See State v. McCabe, 420 So.2d 955 (La. 1982); State v. Bodley, 394 So.2d 584 (La. 1981).

This Court will not review the merits of an application filed by a pro se applicant who is represented by counsel unless the applicant alleges deficiencies in the performance of his counsel and has presented that complaint to the district court. Herein, if relator seeks to resume the hearing on his application for post conviction relief or complain of his counsel’s performance, he should first address those complaints to the district court.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

592 So. 2d 513, 1992 La. App. LEXIS 211, 1992 WL 11224, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-simmons-v-state-lactapp-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack