DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. McGee, 24 So. 3d 235.

21 citing documents.

  • State of Louisiana Versus Walter Dj Thomas La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2020
    App. 5 Cir. 9/29/09), -43, wherein this Court concluded that the defendant appeared indigent because he was represented by the Louisiana Appellate Project and then refrained from exercising our authority to correct the illegally lenient sentence that was imposed without the mandatory fine since the defendant’s sentence resulted fro
  • State v. Chirlow 260 So. 3d 1282 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
    App. 5 Cir. 9/29/09), , 242.
  • State v. Taylor 236 So. 3d 1281 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
    App. 5 Cir. 9/29/09), , 241.
  • State v. Sutton 209 So. 3d 330 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
  • State v. Stokes 205 So. 3d 1025 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
  • State v. Kent 178 So. 3d 219 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
  • State v. Gayden 168 So. 3d 766 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
  • State v. Boston 167 So. 3d 82 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
  • State v. Gillum 165 So. 3d 924 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
  • State v. James 136 So. 3d 113 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
  • State v. Aston 125 So. 3d 1148 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
  • State v. Turner 118 So. 3d 1186 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
  • State v. Ford 113 So. 3d 319 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
  • State v. Williams 106 So. 3d 1068 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2012
    5 Cir. 9/29/09) ; -42 ; State v. England, 09-746 (La.App.
  • State v. Kinard 105 So. 3d 974 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
  • State v. Christensen 102 So. 3d 984 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
  • State v. Ford 81 So. 3d 841 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
  • State v. Mouton 78 So. 3d 245 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
  • State v. Bennett 63 So. 3d 251 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    5 Cir. 9/29/09), , in which this Court refrained from exercising its authority to correct an illegally lenient sentence imposed without a mandatory fine, reasoning that the defendant appeared indigent because he was represented by the Louisiana Appellate Project.
  • State v. Thomas 54 So. 3d 678 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2010
    5 Cir. 9/29/09), , in which this Court refrained from exercising its authority to correct an illegally lenient sentence imposed without a mandatory fine, reasoning that the defendant's sentence resulted from a guilty plea and the defendant appeared indigent because he was represented by the Louisiana Appellate Project.
  • State v. Richardson 33 So. 3d 903 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    5 Cir. 9/29/09) , , in which this Court noted that defendant appeared indigent because he was represented by the Louisiana Appellate Project and then refrained from exercising its authority to correct the illegally lenient sentence that was imposed without the mandatory fine since the defendant’s sentence resulted from a guilty plea.