I previously wrote separately to spotlight the importance of compliance with Boykin v. Alabama , 395 U.S. 238, 243, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969) and La. C.Cr.P. art. 556.1, see State v. Trahan , 16-2083 (La. 4/16/18), 241 So.3d 286, and I reiterate those concerns here. In response to the state's minute entries associated with defendant's three guilty pleas to misdemeanor DWI in Mississippi, which do not indicate whether defendant was advised of his Boykin rights in accordance with State v. Jones , 404 So.2d 1192 (La. 1981) (per curiam), defendant testified that neither the judge who accepted the pleas nor the lawyer who negotiated the plea agreements ever advised him of any of the rights he was waiving by pleading guilty. I would grant defendant's writ application to examine whether defendant's sworn denial constitutes "affirmative evidence showing an infringement of his rights or a procedural irregularity in the taking of the plea" sufficient to shift the burden back to the state to produce a perfect Boykin transcript. See State v. Carlos , 98-1366, pp. 6-7 (La. 7/7/99), 738 So.2d 556, 559.
State v. Peters, 253 So. 3d 785 (2018)
Sept. 28, 2018
·
Louisiana Supreme Court
·
NO. 2018-KK-1417
253 So. 3d 785
STATE of Louisiana
v.
Michael PETERS
NO. 2018-KK-1417
Supreme Court of Louisiana.
September 28, 2018
ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE 19th JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT FOR THE PARISH OF EAST BATON ROUGE
Writ denied.
HUGHES, J., would grant for the reasons assigned by Crichton, J.
CRICHTON, J., would grant and assigns reasons: