Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Williams, 800 So. 2d 790.

574 citing documents.

State of Louisiana v. Briant Keith Colar La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
11/28/01), at 799, determined that La.R.S.
State of Louisiana v. Ricky J. Langley La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
11/28/01), the supreme court explained: It is well settled that “the chilling [effect on] appeals does not in and of itself offend due process.” United States v. Henry, 709 F.2d 298, 316 n. 26 (5th Cir.1983).
State v. Langley 896 So. 2d 200 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
Similarly, in State v. Williams, 00-1725, p. 9 (La.11/28/01), , the supreme court explained: It is well settled that "the chilling [effect on] appeals does not in and of itself offend due process."
State v. Pittman 892 So. 2d 641 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2004
State v. Williams, 00-1725 (La.11/29/01), ; State v. Converse, supra .
State v. Simms 892 So. 2d 111 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2004
See also, State v. Williams, 00-1725 (La.11/28/01), .
State v. Packnett 892 So. 2d 615 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2004
15:301.1(A) and the rationale in State v. Williams, 00-1725 (La.11/28/01), , the required statutory restrictions are contained in the sentence, and no correction of the commitment is necessary.
State v. Bertrand 891 So. 2d 752 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
It is well settled that “the chilling [effect on] appeals does not in and of itself offend due process.” State v. Williams, 00-1725, p. 9 (La.11/28/01), , quoting from United States v. Henry, 709 F.2d 298 , 316 n. 26 (5th Cir.1983).
State v. Haynes 889 So. 2d 224 La. 2004
To the extent that the amendment of defendant's sentence entails more than a ministerial correction of a sentencing error, the decision in State v. Williams, 00-1725 (La.11/28/01), , does not sanction the sua sponte correction made by the court of appeal on defendant's appeal of his conviction and sentence.
State v. Johnson 892 So. 2d 28 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2004
Furthermore, in State v. Williams, XXXX-XXXX (La.11/28/01), , the Louisiana Supreme Court ruled that this provision self-activates the correction and eliminates the need to remand for a ministerial correction of an illegally lenient sentence, which may *33 result from the failure of the sentencing court to impose punishment in conformity with that provided in the statute.
State of Louisiana v. Lamar Pierce Phillips La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
State v. Phillips 887 So. 2d 670 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
art. 882 and State v. Williams, 00-1725 (La.11/28/01), .
State v. Williams 888 So. 2d 971 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2004
This article has been interpreted by the Louisiana Supreme Court in State v. Williams, XXXX-XXXX (La.11/28/01), as follows: Paragraph A of La.
State v. Grant 887 So. 2d 596 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2004
[3] State v. Williams, 00-1725 (La.11/28/01), .
State v. Taylor 887 So. 2d 589 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2004
State v. Williams, 00-1725 (La.11/28/01), -799 ; State v. Williams, 03-942 (La.App.
State v. Kibbe 887 So. 2d 565 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2004
[13] State v. Williams, 00-1725 (La.11/28/01), .
State of Louisiana v. Warren Fuselier La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
11/28/01), the supreme court discussed La.R.S.
State v. Fuselier 885 So. 2d 678 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
In State v. Williams, 00-1725 (La.11/28/01), , the supreme court discussed La.R.S.
State v. Johnson 884 So. 2d 568 La. 2004
State v. Williams, 00-1725, p. 13 (La.11/28/01), .
State v. Cooper 882 So. 2d 657 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2004
15:301.1(A); State v. Williams, 00-1725 (La.11/28/01), .
State v. Bennett 880 So. 2d 165 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2004
State v. Williams, 00-1725 (La.11/28/01), .
State v. Falkins 880 So. 2d 903 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2004
15:301.1(C), as interpreted by State v. Williams, 00-1725 (La.11/29/01), , imposes these restrictions by operation of law.
State v. Newman 879 So. 2d 870 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
15:301.1(A) was enacted after Mr. Newman’s crime was committed, that statute has retroactive application under State v. Williams, 2000-1725 (La.11/28/01), .
State v. Campbell 877 So. 2d 112 La. 2004
State v. Williams, XXXX-XXXX, p. 9-10 (La.11/28/01), .
State v. Mitchell 877 So. 2d 1151 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2004
This error patent does not require any action by this Court because LSA-R.S.15:301.1(C) [1] , as interpreted by *1157 State v. Williams, 00-1725 (La.11/28/01) , 799 imposes these restrictions by operation of law.
State v. Sarrio 875 So. 2d 898 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2004
Under State v. Williams, 00-1725 (La.11/28/01), , and La.
State v. Packnett 873 So. 2d 789 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2004
[15] 00-1725 (La.11/28/01), .
State v. Taylor 874 So. 2d 297 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2004
State v. Walton 872 So. 2d 1221 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
In State v. Williams, 00-1725 (La.11/28/01), , the Louisiana Supreme Court held that where statutory restrictions, such as those enumerated in La.R.S.
State v. Brown 895 So. 2d 542 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2004
15:301.1(A) and State v. Williams, XXXX-XXXX (La.11/28/01), , the sentence is deemed to have been imposed with these restrictions of benefits, even in the absence of the trial court's failure to delineate them.
State v. August 870 So. 2d 553 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
art. 882 and State v. Williams, 00-1725 (La.11/28/01), , an appellate court may recognize an illegally lenient sentence sua sponte.
State of Louisiana v. Robert August La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
11/28/01), an appellate court may recognize an illegally lenient sentence sua sponte.
State v. Figueroa 869 So. 2d 957 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
art. 882 and State v. Williams, 00-1725 (La.11/28/01), .
State of Louisiana v. Jose Figueroa La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
State v. Addison 871 So. 2d 536 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2004
5 Cir. 12/21/99) , , writ denied, 00-206 (La.8/31/00), , overruled on other grounds by State v. Williams, 00-1725 (La.11/28/01), .
State v. Heim 870 So. 2d 335 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
Furthermore, in State v. Williams, 2000-1725 (La.11/28/01), , the Louisiana Supreme Court ruled that paragraph A of the statute self-activates-the corree *338 tion and eliminates the need to remand for a ministerial correction of an illegally lenient sentence, which may result from the failure of the sentencing court to impose punishment in conformity with that provided in the
State v. Faul 873 So. 2d 690 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
State v. Williams, 00-1725 (La.11/28/01), .
State v. Harris 868 So. 2d 886 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2004
15:301.1(A), as interpreted by State v. Williams, 00-1725 (La.11/28/01), , these restrictions are imposed by operation by law.
State v. Douglas 868 So. 2d 896 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
Pursuant to State v. Williams, 00-1725 (La.11/28/01), , and LaC.Cr.P.
State v. Parker 868 So. 2d 23 La. 2004
art. 893, our decision in State v. Williams, 00-1725 (La.11/28/01), , does not sanction the sua sponte correction made by the court of appeal on defendant’s appeal of his conviction and sentence.
State v. Interiano 868 So. 2d 9 La. 2004
State v. Williams, 00-1725 (La.11/28/01), ; State v. Carr, 99-2209 (La.5/26/00), .
State v. Moore 865 So. 2d 227 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2004
15:301.1(A); State v. Williams, 00-1725 (La.11/28/01), .
State v. Williams 866 So. 2d 1003 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2004
State v. Williams, 00-1725, p. 10 (La.11/28/01), -799 ; State v. Jerome, 03-126, pp. 7-8 (La.App.
State v. Washington 866 So. 2d 973 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
Further, while we have the authority to correct an illegally lenient sentence despite the failure of either party to raise the hsissue in the district court or even on appeal, pursuant .to State v. Williams, 00- *985 1725 (La.11/28/01), and La.
State v. Washington 866 So. 2d 973 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2004
Further, while we have the authority to correct an illegally lenient sentence despite the failure of either party to raise the issue in the district court or even on appeal, pursuant to State v. Williams, 00-1725 *985 (La.11/28/01), and La.
State v. Converse 864 So. 2d 803 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2003
State v. Williams, XXXX-XXXX (La.11/29/01), .
State v. Quinones 864 So. 2d 824 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2003
State v. Bruce 864 So. 2d 854 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2003
11/28/01), , the Louisiana Supreme Court effectively held that the appellate court has the authority to recognize and correct an illegally lenient sentence.
State v. Johnson 864 So. 2d 645 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2003
However, according to State v. Williams, 00-1725 (La.11/28/01), , this error does not require any action by this Court because La.
State v. Brown 861 So. 2d 644 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2003
[34] 00-1725 (La.11/28/01), .
State v. Sanders 861 So. 2d 589 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by