State v. HinsonState v. Hinson
- Reporters:
- ,
- Before:
- Per Curiam (per curiam)
Granted. The trial court erred in granting the defendant‘s motion to quash the bill of information and ruling that the state cannot use his 1995 DWI conviction to enhance the present offense on grounds that the district judge in that case did not specifically inquire into the defendant‘s age, education or mental capacity before allowing him to waive counsel and plead guilty. Although this Court observed in State v. Strain, 585 So.2d 540, 543 (La. 1991), that “[f]actors bearing on the validity of [the waiver] include the age, education, experience, background, competency and conduct of the accused,” this Court did not thereby set out a per se rule that a plea cannot be knowing and intelligent unless the trial court specifically inquires into these factors. The Court stated that whether a plea is knowing and voluntary is determined “in terms of the entire record
The judgment of the district court granting the motion to quash is reversed and this case is remanded for further proceedings.