Supreme Court of Louisiana
State of Louisiana v. Reggie Patrick Thibodeaux
December 6, 2017236 So. 3d 1253
Summary
The court held that a trial court may not reflexively deny every pro se filing submitted by a defendant who is represented by counsel. Instead, the court must determine whether counsel will adopt the filing and, if not, assess its potential to cause confusion, disruption, or reversible error before deciding whether a hearing concerning self-representation is necessary. Justice Hughes concurred, emphasizing that an Alexander hearing is not required for every pro se filing and that counsel should first address legitimate motions with the client.
Holding
- Treatment of pro se filings by represented defendants. A trial court may not use a reflexive stamped denial to reject all pro se filings by a represented defendant. For a pro se motion to suppress, the court must first determine whether defense counsel wishes to adopt the motion; if counsel does not, the court must evaluate the motion's disruptive potential before deciding whether to conduct a hearing concerning the defendant's choice between representation and self-representation.
Docket 2017-KK-0705
Cited authorities
- U.S. Const. amend. VI
Cited by
- State of Louisiana v. Darrel W. Harris, Jr.
- State of Louisiana v. William Verlander
- State of Louisiana v. Cody Michael Matthews
- State of Louisiana Versus Trenton Gavin
- State of Louisiana v. Deandre Galmon
- State of Louisiana v. Cedric Emerson
- State of Louisiana v. Jacob Fay Luke, Sr.
- State of Louisiana v. Frank Brooks