From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Melon

Supreme Court of Louisiana
Sep 22, 1995
660 So. 2d 466 (La. 1995)

Summary

In State v. Melon, 95-2209 (La. 9/22/95), 660 So.2d 466, the Louisiana Supreme Court noted that "[o]n previous occasions, this Court has indicated that the meaningful access to courts guaranteed by La. Const. art. I, Sections 2, 19 and 22 requires courts to accept and consider post-verdict pro se filings from represented defendants."

Summary of this case from State ex rel. Poupart v. State

Opinion

No. 95-CQ-2209

September 22, 1995

IN RE: First Circuit Court of Appeal; — Other(s); Applying for Certified Question; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Number KW95 0792, KW94 1872, KW94 2595, KA94 1850; Parish of East Baton Rouge 19th Judicial District Court Div. "B" Number 3-95-1133; 19th Judicial District Court Div. "J" Number 3-93-1304; 19th Judicial District Court Div. "E" Number 9-00-3030, 10-93-394


Certification granted in part; otherwise denied. State v. Bodley, 394 So.2d 584 (La. 1982), provides a rule designed to preserve order and consistency at trial and does not purport to apply in a post-verdict context. On previous occasions, this Court has indicated that the meaningful access to the courts guaranteed by La. Const. art. I Sections 2, 19, and 22 requires courts to accept and consider post-verdict pro se filings from represented defendants. See e.g. State v. Stewart, 94-2267 (La. 9/16/94), 642 So.2d 181; State v. Johnson, 94-2191 (La. 9/16/94), 642 So.2d 181. We reaffirm that rule as stating the correct principle for the courts of this state to follow. We further direct that the lower courts must also accept and consider filings from represented defendants in a preverdict context whenever doing so will not lead to confusion at trial. See, E.g., State v. Allen, 94-1919 (La. 8/12/94), 642 So.2d 1271; State v. Terry, 94-1493 (La. 7/5/94), 639 So.2d 1186. All courts retain the discretion to grant or withhold co-counsel status, after or before verdict. State ex rel. Spitz v. State, 94-0792 (La. 4/22/94), 637 So.2d 149; State v. McCabe, 420 So.2d 955, 957 (La. 1982).

CDK

WFM

BJJ

JPV

LEMMON, J. not on panel.


Summaries of

State v. Melon

Supreme Court of Louisiana
Sep 22, 1995
660 So. 2d 466 (La. 1995)

In State v. Melon, 95-2209 (La. 9/22/95), 660 So.2d 466, the Louisiana Supreme Court noted that "[o]n previous occasions, this Court has indicated that the meaningful access to courts guaranteed by La. Const. art. I, Sections 2, 19 and 22 requires courts to accept and consider post-verdict pro se filings from represented defendants."

Summary of this case from State ex rel. Poupart v. State

In State v. Melon, 95-2209 (La. 09/22/95), 660 So.2d 466, the supreme court directed that the lower courts must also accept and consider pro-se filings from represented defendants in a preverdict context whenever doing so will not lead to confusion at trial.

Summary of this case from State v. Craig
Case details for

State v. Melon

Case Details

Full title:STATE OF LOUISIANA v. RONALD G. MELON, JR. CONSOLIDATED WITH STATE OF…

Court:Supreme Court of Louisiana

Date published: Sep 22, 1995

Citations

660 So. 2d 466 (La. 1995)

Citing Cases

State v. Alexander

On August 14, 2007, Defendant filed an application for supervisory review with this court. Defendant…

State v. Thibodeaux

The court of appeal granted the application in part and directed the trial court to conduct a hearing to…