DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Stevens, 949 So. 2d 597.

89 citing documents.

  • State of Louisiana v. George McKinney, Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2022
  • State of Louisiana v. Edward Garriet, III La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2022
    3 Cir. 1/31/07), (restitution, fine, court costs, and reimbursement to Indigent Defender Board), and State v. Fontenot, 01-540 (La.App.
  • State of Louisiana v. Terry Len Joseph La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2021
    3 Cir. 1/31/07), (restitution, fine, court costs, and reimbursement to Indigent Defender Board), and State v. Fontenot, 01-540 (La.App.
  • State of Louisiana v. Michael Dan Roberts La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2021
    3 Cir. 1/31/07), -601, this court stated: Upon reconsideration, we find nothing in the statute which prohibits the trial court from seeking assistance from outside sources, including Probation and Parole, in formulating the appropriate payment plan.
  • State of Louisiana v. Davian Bessard La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2020
  • State of Louisiana v. Robert Lee Belsha La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2018
    3 Cir. 1/31/07), (restitution, fine, court costs, and reimbursement to Indigent Defender Board), and State v. Fontenot, 01-540 (La.App.
  • State of Louisiana v. Kelvin Latrial McAdory La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2018
    3 Cir. 1/31/07), (restitution, fine, court costs, and reimbursement to Indigent Defender Board), and State v. Fontenot, 01-540 (La.App.
  • State v. McAdory 237 So. 3d 539 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
    3 Cir. 1/31/07) , (restitution, fine, court costs, and reimbursement to Indigent Defender Board), and State v. Fontenot , 01-540 (La.App.
  • State of Louisiana v. Christopher Shon MacE La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2017
    3 Cir. 1/31/07), (restitution, fine, court costs, and reimbursement to Indigent Defender Board), and State v. Fontenot, 01-540 (La.App.
  • State v. Mace 258 So. 3d 658 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
    3 Cir. 1/31/07) , (restitution, fine, court costs, and reimbursement to Indigent Defender *661 Board), and State v. Fontenot , 01-540 (La.App.
  • State of Louisiana v. Skylar Frank La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
    3 Cir. 1/31/07), (restitution, fine, court costs, and reimbursement to Indigent Defender Board), and State v. Fontenot, 01-540 (La.App.
  • State v. Frank 192 So. 3d 888 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
    3 Cir. 1/31/07) , (restitution, fine, court costs, and reimbursement to Indigent Defender Board), and State v. Fontenot, 01-540 (La.App.
  • State of Louisiana v. Travis Joseph Reno La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
    3 Cir. 1/31/07), (this court in Brack noted that there are situations where it would be permissible to allow the original sentence to remain in effect without resentencing, such as where the defendant is subsequently sentenced to the same number of years as sentenced to originally).
  • State of Louisiana v. Tavares Charles La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
    3 Cir. 1/31/07), (restitution, fine, court costs, and reimbursement to Indigent Defender Board), and State v. Fontenot, 01-540 (La.App.
  • State of Louisiana v. Gerald Brent Debarge La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2015
    3 Cir. 1/31/07), defense counsel waived the defendant’s presence at the hearing on his motion to reconsider sentence.
  • State v. Debarge 159 So. 3d 526 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
    3 Cir. 1/31/07) , , defense counsel waived the defendant’s presence at the hearing on his motion to reconsider sentence.
  • State of Louisiana v. Cody Lane Crittenden La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
    3 Cir. 1/31/07), (restitution, fine, court costs, and reimbursement to Indigent Defender Board), and State v. Fontenot, 01-540 (La.App.
  • State of Louisiana v. Markell Roberts La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
    3 Cir. 1/31/07), this court discussed payment plans for amounts owed as conditions of probation and stated, “This court has previously held that similar provisions as to payment are not acceptable and that the trial court must announce the payment plan in ordering payment over a term.” Accordingly, we hereby remand th
  • State of Louisiana v. Catrina L. Wallace La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
    3 Cir. 1/31/07), State v. Walton, 98-1433 (La.App.
  • State of Louisiana v. William C. Baronet La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
    3 Cir. 1/31/07), this court addressed as an error patent the legality of defense counsel’s waiver of Thomas’ presence from a hearing at which the trial court imposed restitution.
  • State v. Wallace 153 So. 3d 1040 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    3 Cir. 1/31/07) , ; State v. Walton, 98-1433 (La.App.
  • State v. Baronet 153 So. 3d 1112 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    3 Cir. 1/31/07) , , this court addressed as an error patent the legality of defense counsel’s waiver of Thomas’ presence from a hearing at which the trial court imposed restitution.
  • State of Louisiana v. Jean-Luc Arisme La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
    3 Cir. 1/31/07), (restitution, fine, court costs, and reimbursement to Indigent Defender Board), and State v. Fontenot, 01-540 (La.App.
  • State v. Arisme 123 So. 3d 1259 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    3 Cir. 1/31/07) , (restitution, fine, court costs, and reimbursement to Indigent Defender Board), and State v. Fontenot, 01-540 (La.App.
  • State of Louisiana v. Eldridge Tezano, Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
    3 Cir. 1/31/07), a 4 payment plan “may be determined by the trial court or formulated by Probation and Parole and approved by the trial court.” ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 1: In his first assignment of error, Defendant claims that the trial court erred by failing to order the
  • State of Louisiana v. Kenneth Wayne Randolph La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
    3 Cir. 1/31/07), (restitution, fine, court costs, and reimbursement to Indigent Defender Board), and State v. Fontenot, 01-540 (La.App.
  • State in the Interest of B. A. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
  • State ex rel. B.A. 104 So. 3d 833 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
  • State of Louisiana v. Jill Tall La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
    3 Cir. 1/31/07), -600, this court stated: [W]e find nothing in the statute which prohibits the trial court from seeking assistance from outside sources, including Probation and Parole, in formulating the appropriate payment plan.
  • State v. Tall 100 So. 3d 388 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    3 Cir. 1/31/07), -600 , this court stated: [WJe find nothing in the statute which prohibits the trial court from seeking assistance from outside sources, including Probation and Parole, in formulating the appropriate payment plan.
  • State of Louisiana v. Chalon Lanay Benton La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
    3 Cir. 1/31/07), -600, this court stated: [W]e find nothing in the statute which prohibits the trial court from seeking assistance from outside sources, including Probation and Parole, in formulating the appropriate payment plan.
  • State of Louisiana v. Javier C. Gonzales La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
  • State of Louisiana v. Joseph A. Granger, Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
    3 Cir. 1/31/07), this court stated: Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure Article 835 provides for the Defendant‟s presence when sentence is pronounced: In felony cases the defendant shall always be present when sentence is pronounced.
  • State of Louisiana v. Joseph A. Granger La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
    3 Cir. 1/31/07), this court stated: Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure Article 835 provides for the Defendant‟s presence when sentence is pronounced: In felony cases the defendant shall always be present when sentence is pronounced.
  • State of Louisiana v. Joey Granger La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
    3 Cir. 1/31/07), this court stated: Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure Article 835 provides for the Defendant‟s presence when sentence is pronounced: In felony cases the defendant shall always be present when sentence is pronounced.
  • State of Louisiana v. Joey Granger La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
    3 Cir. 1/31/07), this court stated: Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure Article 835 provides for the Defendant‟s presence when sentence is pronounced: In felony cases the defendant shall always be present when sentence is pronounced.
  • State of Louisiana v. Joseph Joey" Alford Granger " La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
    3 Cir. 1/31/07), this court stated: Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure Article 835 provides for the Defendant‟s presence when sentence is pronounced: In felony cases the defendant shall always be present when sentence is pronounced.
  • State of Louisiana v. Joseph A. Granger La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
    3 Cir. 1/31/07), this court stated: Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure Article 835 provides for the Defendant‟s presence when sentence is pronounced: In felony cases the defendant shall always be present when sentence is pronounced.
  • State of Louisiana v. Robera Cartrell Milo La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
    3 Cir. 1/31/07), (restitution, fine, court costs, and reimbursement to Indigent Defender Board); and, State v. Fontenot, 01-540 (La.App.
  • State of Louisiana v. Joseph Michael Elie, III La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
    24 defense counsel waived the defendant‘s presence at the hearing on his motion to reconsider sentence.
  • State v. Elie 74 So. 3d 1216 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    3 Cir. 1/31/07) , , defense counsel waived the defendant’s presence at the hearing on his motion to reconsider sentence.
  • State v. Lewis 48 So. 3d 1073 La. 2010
    3rd Cir.1/31/07), (quoting Lanclos); (La.App.
  • State of Louisiana v. Curtis K. Jones La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
  • State of Louisiana v. D D La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
    3 Cir. 1/31/07) the payment plan may either be formulated by the trial court or by Probation and Parole, with the trial court’s approval.
  • State of Louisiana v. Robert Allen Snelling La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
  • State v. Snelling 36 So. 3d 1060 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
  • State v. DD 34 So. 3d 1169 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
    3 Cir. 1/31/07) , the payment plan may either be formulated by the trial court or by Probation and Parole, with the trial court's approval.
  • State of Louisiana v. Cody Lacombe La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
    3 Cir. 1/31/07), (restitution, fine, court costs, and reimbursement to Indigent Defender Board); and, State v. Fontenot, 01-540 (La.App.
  • State v. LaCombe 25 So. 3d 1002 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    3 Cir. 1/31/07) , (restitution, fine, court costs, and reimbursement to Indigent Defender Board); and, State v. Fontenot, 01-540 (La.App.
  • State of Louisiana v. Tory Landry La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
    3 Cir. 1/31/07), State v. Fontenot, 01-0540 (La.App.