Evans v. State

3 Citing cases

  1. Leak v. Graves

    261 Ark. 619 (Ark. 1977)   Cited 5 times
    Finding that in view of the appellant's age, education, and recent experience in court, represented by counsel, appellant knowingly and intelligently chose to waive his right to counsel

    The right to counsel is a personal right which the accused may knowingly and intelligently waive either at the pretrial stage or at trial. Burton v. State, 260 Ark. 688, 543 S.W.2d 760 (1976); Evans v. State, 251 Ark. 151, 471 S.W.2d 346 (1971); Barger v. State, 249 Ark. 878, 462 S.W.2d 216 (1971); and Slaughter v. State, 240 Ark. 471, 400 S.W.2d 267 (1966). Here it clearly appears that the trial court was solicitous of appellant's constitutional rights and thoroughly advised him of them.

  2. Bell Walker v. State

    530 S.W.2d 662 (Ark. 1976)   Cited 9 times
    Noting that trial judge can hear testimony and observe demeanor of parties, "an opportunity denied us as we review the cold record"

    Both signed statements reflecting their understanding of the fact that they were to be provided counsel if they so desired at any time during the proceedings. In Evans v. State, 251 Ark. 151, 471 S.W.2d 346 (1971), the court said: It is a firmly established rule of law that a defendant can intelligently waive his constitutional right to counsel.

  3. State ex Rel. LeBlanc v. Henderson

    261 La. 315 (La. 1972)   Cited 75 times
    In State ex rel. LeBlanc v. Henderson, 261 La. 315, 259 So.2d 557 (1972), another post-conviction proceeding attacking a guilty plea, this court held that a determination of voluntariness of a guilty plea is not limited by Boykin to the verbatim entry made at the time of the plea but rather is determined from the entire record, which can include evidence taken at a "reconstruction" of the plea proceedings at a hearing when the plea is later attacked.

    Such evidence is considered as an extension of the record. See Clark v. State, Fla., 256 So.2d 551 (1972); Bennett v. Commonwealth, Ky., 463 S.W.2d 331 (1971); Smith v. Director, Patuxent Institution, Md. App., 280 A.2d 910 (1971); Evans v. State, Ark., 471 S.W.2d 346 (1971); Grass v. State, Me., 263 A.2d 63 (1970); State v. Elledge, 81 N.M. 18, 462 P.2d 152 (1969); Hall v. State, 45 ALa.App. 252, 228 So.2d 863 (1969). We find no theory in Boykin that criminal convictions are built upon a piece of paper that must be inked simultaneously with the plea.