State v. Heaton

1 Citing case

  1. State v. Blunt

    116 Wn. App. 1073 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003)   Cited 13 times
    Finding a district court docket printout, bolstered by a court administrator's testimony, sufficient evidence of a prior DUI conviction

    Other states have similarly applied Mitchell to sentencing situations where the testimony or inference relates to the facts or elements of the crime. See, e.g., People v. Watkins, 247 Mich. App. 14, 634 N.W.2d 370, 378 (2001) (defendant pleading guilty of "open murder" does not waive right to remain silent at "degree" hearing); State v. Heaton, 770 So. 2d 477, 480 (La.Ct.App. 2000) (compelling defendant who pleaded guilty to take stand and admit charges at sentencing is inconsistent with Mitchell, but harmless on facts). Nonetheless, most courts have generally declined to extend Mitchell to prohibit inferences from silence in the context of sentence enhancements that do not involve factual details of the underlying crime.