Cited by
Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Hensley, 900 So. 2d 1.
-
State of Louisiana Versus Tonny J Bauer
La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2024
App. 5 Cir. 3/1/05), writ denied, 05-823 (La.
-
State of Louisiana Versus Gilbert J. Burciaga
La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2023
App. 5 Cir. 3/1/05), writ denied, 05-823 (La.
-
State of Louisiana Versus Jose M. Sagastume
La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2022
App. 5 Cir. 03/01/05), writ denied, 05-823 (La.
-
State of Louisiana Versus John Spears
La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2019
App. 5 Cir. 3/1/05); writ denied, 05- 0823 (La.
-
State ex rel. Hensley v. State
192 So. 3d 726
La. 2016
5 Cir. 3/1/05); ; writs denied, 05-K-823 (La.6/17/05); .
-
State v. Burse
169 So. 3d 649
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
5 Cir. 3/1/05), , writ denied, 05-0823 (La.6/17/05), .
-
State v. Castro
40 So. 3d 1036
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
5 Cir. 3/1/05) , , writ denied, 05-0823 (La.6/17/05), .
-
State v. Mazique
40 So. 3d 224
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
5 Cir. 3/1/05) , , writ denied, 05-0823 (La.6/17/05), .
-
State v. Nelson
39 So. 3d 658
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
5 Cir. 3/1/05), , writ denied, 05-0823 (La.6/17/05), .
-
State v. Mosley
16 So. 3d 398
La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2009
5 Cir. 3/1/05), -14 , writ denied, 05-823 (La.6/17/05), ; [4] and State v. Thomas, 04-1341, pp. 15-16 (La.App.
-
State v. Mosley
16 So. 3d 398
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
5 Cir. 3/1/05), -14 , writ denied, 05-823 (La.6/17/05), ; 4 and State v. Thomas, 04-1341, pp. 15-16 (La.App.
-
State v. Raymond
13 So. 3d 577
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
5 Cir. 3/1/05), , writ denied, 05-0823 (La.6/17/05), .
-
State v. Mitchell
7 So. 3d 720
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
5 Cir. 3/1/05) , , writ denied, 05-0823 (La.6/17/05), .
-
State v. Darensbourg
948 So. 2d 1128
La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2006
5 Cir. 3/1/05) , , writ denied, 05-0823 (La.6/17/05), .
-
State v. Weatherspoon
948 So. 2d 215
La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2006
5 Cir. 3/1/05) , , writ denied, 05-0823 (La.6/17/05), .
-
State v. Thomas
904 So. 2d 896
La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2005
5 Cir. 3/1/05) , , this Court noted on its error patent review that there was a "potential issue" regard the sufficiency of the evidence at the multiple bill hearing in that the record did not reflect the underlying offense was committed within ten years of the discharge date of the next predicate conviction.