State v. Carlisle, No. 55820
| Court | Louisiana Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | BARHAM; SANDERS, C.J., dissents for the reasons assigned by MARCUS; SUMMERS, J., dissents for the reasons assigned by MARCUS; MARCUS; MARCUS |
| Citation | 315 So.2d 675 |
| Decision Date | 23 June 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 55820 |
| Parties | STATE of Louisiana v. John W. CARLISLE. |
Page 675
v.
John W. CARLISLE.
Page 676
Michael S. Ingram, Monroe, for defendant-appellant.
William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., J. Carl Parkerson, Dist. Atty., John R. Harrison, Asst. Dist. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.
BARHAM, Justice.
Defendant, John W. Carlisle, was arrested on June 30, 1974, and charged with operating a motor vehicle under the influence of intoxicating beverages. Thereafter, the State of Louisiana filed a bill of information charging the defendant with driving while intoxicated as a third offender under La.R.S. 14:98, based upon two prior convictions for the same offense. The bill of information sets forth that Carlisle was first convicted on December 6, 1972, and was sentenced to pay a fine of $400.00 and costs, or, in default, to serve eighty-five days in jail; and, on March 15, 1974, he was convicted as a second offender and sentenced to pay a fine of $300.00 and costs, or, in default, to serve sixty days in jail, and to serve six months imprisonment, which sentence was corrected on May 1, 1974, to six months imprisonment in the multi-parish prison with credit for time served. Defendant was tried by a jury and found guilty as charged. He was sentenced to four years imprisonment at hard labor. Upon appeal of his conviction and sentence to this Court, he relies upon two assignments of errors. A third assignment of error was reserved, but since it was not briefed or argued by defendant, it is considered abandoned. State v. Richmond, 284 So.2d 317 (La.1973); State v. Edwards, 261 La. 1014, 261 So.2d 649 (1972). We find reversible error in the first assignment of error, and we therefore pretermit a discussion of the second.
The defendant urges that the trial court erred in denying his motion to quash the amended bill of information on the grounds that the December 6, 1972 conviction was obtained against him without the assistance of counsel, and without his having knowingly and intelligently waived his right to counsel. We find merit in this contention.
The pertinent facts surrounding the December 6, 1972 conviction are these. Defendant appeared in the Monroe City Court on November 6, 1972, for his arraignment, at which time he pleaded not guilty. It is without dispute that he was not represented by counsel at the November 6, 1972 arraignment, or at the December 6, 1972 trial. It is his contention that he was not advised of his right to counsel and that he did not knowingly and intelligently waive that right. On November 6, 1972, the defendant and other defendants charged with various offenses who were present in court for arraignment were collectively advised of their rights by the City Judge in a standard opening speech made over a loudspeaker system at all arraignment sessions of that court. An excerpt from that opening address follows:
'Some of you may be entitled to the appointment of an...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Jones, No. 67400
...450 (La.1980); State ex rel Bishop v. Blackburn, 384 So.2d 406 (La.1980); LeBlanc v. Watson, 378 So.2d 427 (La.1979); State v. Carlisle, 315 So.2d 675 (La.1975); La.C.Cr.P. arts. 4 See United States v. Burke, 517 F.2d 377 (2d Cir. 1975); United States ex rel Rogers v. Warden of Attica State......
-
State v. Drew, No. 61121
...Therefore, we consider these assignments of error to have been abandoned. State v. Blanton, 325 So.2d 586 (La.1976); State v. Carlisle, 315 So.2d 675 2 By Act 343 of 1977, the legislature amended La.R.S. 14:42 to provide for a sentence of life imprisonment without benefit of parole, probati......
-
State v. Clark, No. 66573
...argued Assignment of Error No. 15. Hence, we consider it to be abandoned. State v. Blanton, 325 So.2d 586 (La.1976); State v. Carlisle, 315 So.2d 675 2 At the time of the commission of the instant crime, conviction of first degree murder required proof of one of four of the aggravating circ......
-
State v. de la Beckwith, No. 58586
...nor argued to this court. Hence, we consider them to have been abandoned. State v. Blanton, 325 So.2d 586 (La.1976); State v. Carlisle, 315 So.2d 675 2 At the time Bartkus was decided, the proscription of double jeopardy included in the fifth amendment was not applicable to the states throu......
-
State v. Jones, No. 67400
...450 (La.1980); State ex rel Bishop v. Blackburn, 384 So.2d 406 (La.1980); LeBlanc v. Watson, 378 So.2d 427 (La.1979); State v. Carlisle, 315 So.2d 675 (La.1975); La.C.Cr.P. arts. 4 See United States v. Burke, 517 F.2d 377 (2d Cir. 1975); United States ex rel Rogers v. Warden of Attica State......
-
State v. Drew, No. 61121
...Therefore, we consider these assignments of error to have been abandoned. State v. Blanton, 325 So.2d 586 (La.1976); State v. Carlisle, 315 So.2d 675 2 By Act 343 of 1977, the legislature amended La.R.S. 14:42 to provide for a sentence of life imprisonment without benefit of parole, probati......
-
State v. Clark, No. 66573
...argued Assignment of Error No. 15. Hence, we consider it to be abandoned. State v. Blanton, 325 So.2d 586 (La.1976); State v. Carlisle, 315 So.2d 675 2 At the time of the commission of the instant crime, conviction of first degree murder required proof of one of four of the aggravating circ......
-
State v. de la Beckwith, No. 58586
...nor argued to this court. Hence, we consider them to have been abandoned. State v. Blanton, 325 So.2d 586 (La.1976); State v. Carlisle, 315 So.2d 675 2 At the time Bartkus was decided, the proscription of double jeopardy included in the fifth amendment was not applicable to the states throu......