 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Holladay5/12/2004
ny witnesses, i.e., that there was compliance with Boykin, supra.
In State v. Anderson, 1998-2977 (La. 03/19/99), 732 So. 2d 517, the supreme court held that advice as to sentencing exposure has never been part of the core Boykin requirements for the entry of a presumptively valid guilty plea.
Holladay does not cite any authority for the proposition that failure to advise him of the enhanceable nature of the offense or the penalties involved renders a guilty plea invalid. Since it has been held that the rule in Boykin has not been expanded to included that a defendant be advised that his guilty plea may be used in future multiple bill proceedings, we find there is no merit to that portion of Holladay's complaint. State v. Walters, 591 So. 2d 1352 (La. App. 4th Cir. 1991), writ denied, 584 So. 2d 1171 (La. 1991).
In conclusion, the evidentiary challenge mounted by the defense concerns a matter which is not an element of the offense and, therefore, lacks merit. Additionally, there is no showing that the trial court erred in denying Holladay's Motion to Quash. So considering, Holladay's conviction and sentence is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
|