Supreme Court of Louisiana, 2000

State ex rel. Canter v. State

State ex rel. Canter v. State
Supreme Court of Louisiana · Decided April 7, 2000 · Calogero, Johnson, Knoll, Lemmon
759 So. 2d 83; 2000 La. LEXIS 1050; 2000 WL 382876 (Southern Reporter, Second Series)

State ex rel. Canter v. State

Dissenting Opinion

LEMMON, J.,

dissents from the refusal of defendant’s right to appeal. Defendants retained attorney orally moved for an appeal immediately after the conviction, but failed to file a written motion, apparently because defendant had no funds to pay for a transcript. In my view, it was ineffective assistance of counsel when trial counsel failed to file a written motion for appeal and to request an indigency hearing on appointment of counsel. Although the fact that there is no transcript or tape of the testimony presently available place the State in a difficult position, defendant has the constitutional right to an appeal.

Dissenting Opinion

JOHNSON, J.,

dissents from the refusal of defendant’s right to appeal. Defendants retained attorney orally moved for an appeal immediately after the conviction, but failed to file a written motion, apparently because defendant had no funds to pay for a transcript. In my view, it was ineffective assistance of counsel when trial counsel failed to file a written motion for appeal and to request an indigency hearing on appointment of counsel. Although the fact that there is no transcript or tape of the testimony presently available places the State in a difficult position, defendant has the constitutional right to an appeal.

Dissenting Opinion

CALOGERO, C.J.,

dissents from the refusal of defendant’s right to appeal. Defendants retained attorney orally moved for an appeal immediately after the conviction, but failed to file a ■written motion, apparently because defendant had no funds to pay for a transcript. In my view, it was ineffective assistance of counsel when trial counsel failed to file a written motion for appeal and to request an indigency hearing on appointment of counsel. Although the fact that there is no transcript or tape of the testimony presently available places the State in a difficult position, defendant has the constitutional right to an appeal.

Opinion of the Court

In re Canter, Charles; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Vermilion, 15th Judicial District Court, Div. B, Nos. 87-25096; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 99 00079

Denied.

KNOLL, J., not on panel.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.