State v. Hall

Supreme Court of Louisiana

State v. Hall

654 So. 2d 1085, 1995 La. LEXIS 1462, 1995 WL 336423

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedJune 2, 1995

DocketNo. 94-K-3147

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 654 So. 2d 1085 (State v. Hall) 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 v. Hall, 654 So. 2d 1085, 1995 La. LEXIS 1462, 1995 WL 336423 (La. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Granted. The defendant’s multiple offender adjudication and sentence are reinstated. To the extent that the documentary evidence introduced by the state, in support of its multiple bill did not show that the predicate offense was for a misdemeanor and tended to establish circumstantially that it was in fact a felony, cf., State v. Totten, 598 So.2d 1274 (La.App. 4th Cir.1992), the defendant remains bound by his failure to raise his present complaint at the time he was adjudicated a multiple offender. State v. Martin, 427 So.2d 1182, 1187 (La.1983); State ex rel. Ross v. Blackburn, 403 So.2d 719 (La.1981); La.Code Crim.Proc. art. 841; cf. La.Rev.Stat. 15:529.1(D)(l)(b). The defendant must return to the district court in which he was convicted to press any collateral attack on the validity of that prior judgment, and the defendant will have the burden of proof in that attack. La.Code Crim.Proc. art. 924 et seq.

DENNIS, J., not on panel.

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

PER CURIAM.

Granted. The defendant’s multiple offender adjudication and sentence are reinstated. To the extent that the documentary evidence introduced by the state, in support of its multiple bill did not show that the predicate offense was for a misdemeanor and tended to establish circumstantially that it was in fact a felony, cf., State v. Totten, 598 So.2d 1274 (La.App. 4th Cir.1992), the defendant remains bound by his failure to raise his present complaint at the time he was adjudicated a multiple offender. State v. Martin, 427 So.2d 1182, 1187 (La.1983); State ex rel. Ross v. Blackburn, 403 So.2d 719 (La.1981); La.Code Crim.Proc. art. 841; cf. La.Rev.Stat. 15:529.1(D)(l)(b). The defendant must return to the district court in which he was convicted to press any collateral attack on the validity of that prior judgment, and the defendant will have the burden of proof in that attack. La.Code Crim.Proc. art. 924 et seq.

DENNIS, J., not on panel.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

654 So. 2d 1085, 1995 La. LEXIS 1462, 1995 WL 336423, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-hall-la-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack