State v. Battle

8 Citing cases

  1. State v. Morrison

    599 So. 2d 455 (La. Ct. App. 1992)   Cited 19 times
    In Morrison, the court distinguished the decision in State v. Battle, 552 So.2d 503 (La.App. 2d Cir. 1989), writ denied, 559 So.2d 136 (La. 1990), which upheld a guilty plea whereby the judge only informed the defendant of his right to a trial, rather than a right to a jury trial, but mentioned the jury on several occasions.

    See State v. Brew, 593 So.2d 447 (La.App. 2d Cir. 1992); State v. Nabors, 569 So.2d 255 (La.App. 2d Cir. 1990). The instant case is readily distinguishable from this court's decision in State v. Battle, 552 So.2d 503 (La.App. 2d Cir. 1989), writ denied, 559 So.2d 136 (La. 1990). Even though the district court in Battle only informed the defendant of his right to trial, rather than to a jury trial, the judge nevertheless mentioned "jury" on several occasions.

  2. State v. Dassau

    621 So. 2d 901 (La. Ct. App. 1993)

    Relying on Woods, the Third Circuit found no error in the language used by the trial court. Likewise, in State v. Battle, 552 So.2d 503 (La.App. 2nd Cir. 1989), the court found "minimally adequate" the trial judge's explanation to the defendant that he would be waiving the "right to have present and testify against you on these charges the people that are accusing you of the charges." The court stated: "While finding the advisement of the right to confrontation minimally adequate in this case, we note our concern over the language used and that the court's explanation of this right should inform the defendant of the component right to cross-examine the witnesses against him.

  3. State v. Russell

    73 So. 3d 991 (La. Ct. App. 2011)   Cited 11 times

    He shows that for a prior guilty plea to be used as a predicate for a multiple offender bill, the defendant must have been advised of (1) the right against self-incrimination, (2) the right to a jury trial, and (3) the right of confrontation. Boykin v. Alabama, supra; State v. Battle, 552 So.2d 503 (La.App. 2 Cir.1989). He then cites this colloquy from his 1996 guilty plea to simple burglary:

  4. State v. Harvey

    940 So. 2d 40 (La. Ct. App. 2006)

    However, no transcript was submitted to show the defendant was advised he had a right to trial by jury. The state cites State v. Battle, 552 So.2d 503 (La.App. 2d Cir.1989), writ denied, 559 So.2d 136 (La. 1990), wherein this court upheld a guilty plea when the defendant was not specifically informed of his right to trial by jury. However, in that case, the defendant pled guilty on the day the jury trial was to begin.

  5. State v. Keener

    939 So. 2d 510 (La. Ct. App. 2006)   Cited 5 times

    In Woods, the Louisiana Supreme Court held that the defendant was adequately advised of his right to confrontation. In State v. Battle, 552 So.2d 503 (La.App. 2d Cir. 1989), this court found that the district court's language advising the accused that he was waiving the right "to have present and testify against you on these charges the people who are accusing you" was sufficient, although barely, to advise defendant of his right to confrontation under the standard of Woods, supra. In the present case, although the district court did not expressly advise defendant that he was giving up the right to "confront" his accusers, the court advised defendant of his right, at trial, to cross-examine the state's witnesses.

  6. State v. Robinson, 40,983

    930 So. 2d 345 (La. Ct. App. 2006)   Cited 3 times

    This case differs in that the defendant pled guilty to amended charges. In Morrison, the court distinguished the decision in State v. Battle, 552 So.2d 503 (La.App. 2d Cir. 1989), writ denied, 559 So.2d 136 (La. 1990), which upheld a guilty plea whereby the judge only informed the defendant of his right to a trial, rather than a right to a jury trial, but mentioned the jury on several occasions. The court even remarked that the jury stood ready if the defendant did not want to plead guilty.

  7. State v. Anderson

    784 So. 2d 749 (La. Ct. App. 2001)   Cited 11 times
    In State v. Anderson, 34,491 (La.App. 2 Cir. 4/4/01), 784 So.2d 749, this court held that the phrase “you waive your right to confront your witnesses and to cross examine them at trial” adequately complied with the mandates of Boykin and La. C. Cr. P. art. 556.1.

    See, State v. Woods, 402 So.2d 680 (La. 1981) in which the supreme court cautioned against the requirements of the explanation of Boykin rights in a manner which reflected the "height of technicality." See also, State v. Battle, 552 So.2d 503 (La.App. 2d Cir. 1989), writ denied, 559 So.2d 136 (La. 1990) and State v. Scott, 566 So.2d 187 (La.App. 2d Cir. 1990), which likewise rejected hyper-technical adherence to Boykin advice. Under these circumstances, we find that the advice given by the court to Anderson satisfied the requirements of Boykin. With this and Anderson's inability to contend that he did not understand these rights and representation by counsel during the Boykin colloquy, we find no error in the denial of Anderson's motion to quash the 1997 simple kidnapping guilty plea.

  8. State v. Scott

    566 So. 2d 187 (La. Ct. App. 1990)   Cited 3 times

    Thus, Sixth Amendment "confrontation" includes both the right to a face-to-face meeting and the right to conduct cross-examination. The colloquy in the instant case represents a very modest improvement when compared with that of State v. Battle, 552 So.2d 503 (La.App. 2d Cir. 1989), where the district court judge simply advised the defendant of his "right to have present and testify against you on these charges the people that are accusing you of the charges". Although it did not specifically inform the defendant of his right to cross-examination, the Battle language was found minimally adequate.