The jurisprudence prior to that time indicates that the lack of advice and information to the defendant of enhanced penalties did not impact the voluntariness of the plea to the charged offense. State v. Myers, 503 So.2d 1085 (La.App. 2d Cir. 1987); See discussion in State v. Dennis Johnson, 34,902 (La.App. 2d Cir. 09/26/01), 796 So.2d 201. Further, the failure of the trial judge to inform the defendant of the penalties for subsequent offenses in accordance with Article 556.1(E) has been held not to be reversible error because the advice was not required to be given prior to the plea.
State v. Nuccio, 454 So.2d 93 (La. 1984) (rendered subsequent to State v. Jones, 404 So.2d 1192 (La. 1981) upon which the majority heavily relies). Indeed, in State v. Myers, 503 So.2d 1085 (La.App. 2d Cir. 1987), this appellate court reversed the granting of a motion to quash founded upon the same premise as now embraced by the majority. Under the majority holding today, all previous DWI guilty pleas within this circuit will be subject to collateral attack if the trial court has failed to explain fully the law on enhancement of penalties for subsequent offenses.